4.3 Article

Femoral Access and Delivery of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Dose

Journal

BLOOD PURIFICATION
Volume 41, Issue 1-3, Pages 11-17

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000439581

Keywords

Dialysis; Continuous renal replacement therapy; Catheters; Femoral vein; Intensive care

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [352550]
  2. Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand [06-357]
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
  4. Roche
  5. Gambro
  6. Karolinska Institutet
  7. Servier
  8. Novartis
  9. Eisai
  10. Merck
  11. Sharp Dohme
  12. Pfizer Australia
  13. Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH
  14. Sanofi Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The study aims to describe the use of dialysis catheters in critically ill patients treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and to study the impact of femoral versus non-femoral access on CRRT dose. Methods: Statistical analysis and predictive modelling of data from the Randomized Evaluation of Normal vs. Augmented Level renal replacement therapy trial. Results: The femoral vein was the first access site in 937 (67%) of 1,399 patients. These patients had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (p = 0.009) and lower pH (p < 0.001) but similar mortality to patients with non-femoral access (44 vs. 45%; p = 0.63). Lower body weight was independently associated with femoral access placement (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.98). Femoral access was associated with a 1.03% lower CRRT dose (p = 0.05), but a 4.20% higher dose was achieved with 13.5 Fr catheters (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Femoral access was preferred in lighter and sicker patients. Catheter gauge had greater impact than catheter site in CRRT dose delivery. Video Journal Club Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco at http://www.karger.com/?doi=439581. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available