ABSTRACTS from 16th International COnference on ... - CRRT Online

<strong>ABSTRACTS</strong> FROM 17 TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CRRT,
SAN DIEGO, FEB 14-17, 2012
kg), were treated over 3 months <strong>from</strong>
June 29 to December 211. 8 patients
were treated with CVVH and 2 with
CVVHDF. Four patients had an
admitting diagnosis of sepsis, four
patients had liver failure, one patient had
respiratory distress post bone marrow
transplantation and the tenth patient had
Langerhans Histocytosis. Effectiveness
of treatment was measured by negative
fluid balance, fall in plasma
urea/creatinine/ammonia/organic acids,
circuit life, circuit pressures. Eight
patients had a peripherally inserted
double lumen vascular access device and
two patients were connected to an Extra
Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation
(ECMO) circuit. 52 treatment sessions
were performed over 61 patient-days
(range 1-26 sessions, mean 5.2, with 1-
27 days of treatment, mean 6.1 days per
patient). Heparin was used as
anticoagulant for all patients, however,
one patient was changed to citrate.
Blood flow was 2.5 – 6.1 ml/kg/min.
CVVH with prefilter replacement fluid
was standard. Effluent was 2% of blood
flow. Negative or neutral fluid balance
was always achieved and plasma
creatinine, urea, ammonia and organic
acid values fell to steady-state within 3
hours. Access pressure, filter pressure,
venous return pressure and transmembrane
pressure were always within
acceptable ranges. Reasons for changing
circuits included routine change at 72
hours, filter clotting with rising TMP or
cessation of treatment to facilitate a scan
or surgical procedure. No adverse
clinical events occurred as a result of
CVVH. The Prismaflex ST 6 circuit is
efficacious in infants as small as 8 kg.
Mean circuit life for all reasons was
22.45 hours.
7. Outcomes of Patients with End
Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
Under Chronic Hemodialysis
Requiring Continuous Renal
Replacement Therapy (CRRT)
and Patients without ESRD in
Acute Renal Failure Requiring
CRRT
Yeon Soon Jung, Jin Hee Park, Sung Bin
Kim, Ho Sik Shin, Hark Rim
Kosin University College of Medicine
Purpose: The purpose of this study were
to (1) evaluate short-term patient
survival and (2) compare the survival of
conventional hemodialysis (HD) patients
needing CRRT with the survival of nonend
stage renal disease (ESRD) patients
in ARF requiring CRRT.
Methods: We evaluated adults (> 18
years) requiring CRRT who were treated
in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Kosin
University Gospel Hospital, Busan,
Korea <strong>from</strong> January 1, 29 to December
31, 21. A total of 1 (24 ESRD, 76 non-
ESRD) patients received CRRT during
the study period. Patients were divided
into two major groups: patients with
ESRD requiring chronic dialysis and
patients without ESRD (non-ESRD)
with ARF. Predictors of all-cause death
were examined using Kaplan-Meier
analysis and Cox proportional hazards
analyses in both treatment groups.
Results: Across all patients, the median
survival time was 56 days, and the 9-day
survival rate was 44.6%. For non-ESRD
patients, the 9-day survival rate was
41.6%. For ESRD patients, the 9-day
survival rate was 55.3%. Multivariate
Cox proportional hazards analyses
demonstrated that conventional HD was
not a significant predictor of mortality
[hazard ratio (HR) .334, 95% confidence
interval (CI) .63–1.763, P = .196], after
adjustment for age, gender, presence of
sepsis, APACHE score, use of
126