Key result
Continuous renal replacement therapy reduced the length of ICU stay compared to intermittent hemodialysis in ICU patients with renal failure.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in patients with renal failure in the intensive care unit.
Does continuous renal replacement therapy improve renal recovery, mortality, or length of stay compared to intermittent hemodialysis in ICU patients with renal failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,740)
Does continuous renal replacement therapy improve renal recovery, mortality, or length of stay compared to intermittent hemodialysis in ICU patients with renal failure?
In ICU patients with renal failure, CRRT does not improve short-term mortality or renal recovery compared to IHD, but may reduce ICU and hospital length of stay.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports CRRT to shorten ICU stays in renal failure; reinforces Level 1 meta-analytic evidence favoring continuous over intermittent therapy.
Objective. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in patients with renal failure in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods. Relevant studies were searched in the databases including EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (PubMed) from inception to January 04, 2021. The inclusion of available studies and the collection of data were independently conducted by two authors after reviewing the full text. Pooled analyses of relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were performed to compare the outcomes of renal recovery, short‐term mortality, length of ICU stays, and length of in‐hospital stays between the two different treatment groups. Publication bias was assessed by the funnel plot. Results. A total of 11 RCT studies including 1740 patients with renal failure were eligible for final analysis. Among them, 894 patients (51.4%) underwent CRRT and 846 patients (48.6%) received IHD. Pooled analysis did not find significant differences in renal recovery and short‐term mortality between the two groups. Interestingly, patients underwent CRRT showed significantly shorter length of ICU stay and in‐hospital stay than those who underwent IHD (ICU stay: RR: −0.61, 95%CI: −1.10—−0.11, P < 0.05; I2 = 93.6%; in‐hospital stay: RR: −0.56, 95%CI: −1.41–0.28, P < 0.05; I2 = 97.7%). No significant publication biases were observed on the funnel plots. Conclusion. Compared with IHD, CRRT had similar effects on renal recovery and short‐term mortality in patients with renal failure in ICU. As a promising technique in clinical practice, CRRT could significantly reduce the length of ICU stay and in‐hospital stay of patients, which was of great significance for the reduction of medical costs and the long‐term benefits of patients, thereby reducing the burden on society and individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in renal failure in intensive care unit (n=1,740). Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) vs. Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) was evaluated on length of ICU stay (RR -0.61, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.11, p=<0.05). Continuous renal replacement therapy reduced the length of ICU stay compared to intermittent hemodialysis in ICU patients with renal failure.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: