您的位置:法律快车 > 法律知识 > 医疗事故 > 医疗事故预防 > 肾脏疾病预防 > 间歇性透析似乎对大多数急性肾衰竭病患有效

间歇性透析似乎对大多数急性肾衰竭病患有效

法律快车官方整理 更新时间: 2019-02-23 18:43:27 人浏览

导读:

August8,2006--項型隨機試驗報告顯示,在有急性腎衰竭和器官功能不全症狀之重病病患中,使用間歇性透析和連續式透析的60天存活是一樣的本研究係由CochinPort-Royal大學醫院的ChristopheVinsonneau醫師所領導,他們指出,這些資料認為實際上所有病患都可以接受間
  August 8, 2006 -- 項型隨機試驗報告顯示,在有急性腎衰竭和器官功能不全症狀之重病病患中,使用間歇性透析和連續式透析的60天存活是一樣的
  
  本研究係由Cochin Port-Royal大學醫院的Christophe Vinsonneau醫師所領導,他們指出,這些資料認為實際上所有病患都可以接受間歇性透析治療,對重病病患提供嚴格的治療規範以改善耐受和控制代謝是需要的。
  
  此報告可見於7月29日版的Lancet期刊。
  
  【連續性透析有所爭議】
  過去20年,連續性腎替代性治療急性腎衰竭獲得廣泛接受,特別是對那些血液動力學不穩定的病患,不論證據齊全與否,此治療方式比間歇性透析為佳;連續性治療方式的支持者指出,當增加時間平均劑量時會有相當的好處,穩定的容量管理,促進藥物清除,和可能移除高分子量物質如細胞激素;但之比較這兩種治療方式的研究都是回溯式的、或者是證據力薄弱、或者是有瑕疵,如隨機比率失調或研究組中使用不同對象。
  
  本研究目標在比較連續性靜脈血液透析和間歇性透析對急性腎衰竭病患之存活效果,採用前溯式、隨機試驗,兩組使用同一種聚丙烯晴膜和碳酸氫鹽為基礎的透析液進行透析,初級結果是60天存活,基礎是這些病患的住院期間,次級結果是28天和90天之存活 。
  
  從1999到 2003年,研究者前溯式隨機分組360位在法國21家醫院的加護病房病患接受連續性腎替代性治療或間歇性透析,這些病患符合急性腎衰竭和多器官功能不全症狀,且需要腎替代性治療 ,這些醫學中心對這兩種治療方式都極有經驗,研究者提供建議以達到最適當的代謝控制和穩定血液動力學,以平均每日尿素濃度評估治療效果,顯示兩組間無差異。
  
  【相似的60天存活】
  兩組間之60天或其他期間平均存活無顯著差異,研究者注意到在間歇性透析組出現了預料之外的存活顯著增加 ,而在連續性腎替代性治療組並無此情形;他們結論表示,提供嚴格的規範是必要的,間歇性透析看似適合於所有的急性腎衰竭病患 。
  
  間歇性透析相較於連續式透析之初級研究結果比較
  結果 間歇性治療 連續性 腎替代性治療 P 60 天活率 % (95% CI) 31.5 (24.4 – 38.2) 32.6 (25.6 – 39.5) .98
  【需要更多研究的重要研究】
  對此報告的編輯評論中,Pittsburgh 大學醫學院的John Kellum醫師和Paul M. Palevsky醫師指出,Vinsonneau醫師等人的發現是重要的,具有研究強度、包括成功的隨機分組和良好的執行;至於研究弱點則是可能對間歇性透析有偏袒,研究中「非常多」,但是卻只有3.3%病患從間歇性透析轉為後連續性治療獲利,還提到「出人意料的」有9.7% 病患從連續性治療轉為間歇性透析後獲利,另一個困難之處則是透析液的劑量並不明確 。
  
  不過,編輯指出,Vinsonneau醫師等人的研究指出改善存活之所需在如何提供腎臟支持— 一如其顯示的在間歇性透析組的改善;他們結論表示,還需要更多研究,實際的問題如病患是接受連續性治療還是接受間歇性透析比較好則還是無解,遺憾的是,強制使用這種治療或另一種治療的規範也無法對此問題提供答案。

Intermittent Dialysis Seems Effective for Most Patients With Acute Renal Failure

By Marlene Busko
Medscape Medical News

August 8, 2006 – A large randomized trial reports that among critically ill patients with acute renal failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, 60-day survival was the same with intermittent or continuous dialysis.

"These data suggest that virtually all patients can be treated with intermittent dialysis, provided that strict guidelines to improve tolerance and metabolic control in the critically ill are implemented," the researchers, led by Christophe Vinsonneau, MD, from Cochin Port-Royal University Hospital, Paris, France, write.

Their report appears in the July 29 issue of The Lancet.

Continuous Dialysis is Controversial

In the past 20 years, continuous renal-replacement therapy has gained widespread acceptance for treating acute renal failure, especially in hemodynamically unstable patients, despite scarce or poor evidence that this treatment is better than intermittent dialysis, the authors write. Proponents of continuous therapy point to such advantages as increased time-averaged dose, more stable volume management, enhanced drug clearance, and possibly removal of higher-molecular-weight solutes such as cytokines. But previous trials that compared the 2 treatment modalities were retrospective or underpowered or had flaws such as imbalanced randomization or use of different membranes in the study groups, they write.

This study aimed to compare the effect of continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration with intermittent hemodialysis on survival in patients with acute renal failure in a prospective, randomized trial. Dialysis was done using the same type of polyacrylonitrile membrane and bicarbonate-based dialysate in both groups. The primary outcome was 60-day survival, based on the lengthy hospital stay of these patients. Secondary outcomes included 28-day and 90-day survival.

From 1999 to 2003, the researchers prospectively randomized 360 patients in intensive care units in 21 hospitals in France to either continuous renal-replacement therapy or intermittent dialysis. Eligible patients had acute renal failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and required renal-replacement therapy. All centers had extensive experience with the 2 treatments. Investigators were provided with recommendations to achieve optimum metabolic control and hemodynamic stability. Treatment efficacy, as assessed by mean daily urea concentration, did not differ between the 2 groups. [page]

Similar 60-day survival

There was no significant difference between the groups in mean survival at 60 days or at any other time period. The investigators did notice an unexpected significant increase in survival over time in the intermittent-dialysis group but not in the continuous renal-replacement group. They concluded that, provided strict guidelines are implemented, intermittent dialysis seems suitable for almost all patients with acute renal failure.

Primary Study Outcome, Intermittent vs Continuous Dialysis
Outcome
Intermittent Treatment
Continuous
Renal-Replacement Therapy
P
Survival at day 60, % (95% CI)
31.5 (24.4 – 38.2)
32.6 (25.6 – 39.5)
.98

"Important" Study, More Research Needed

In an editorial accompanying the paper, John Kellum, MD, and Paul M. Palevsky, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, write that the findings by Vinsonneau and colleagues are "important." Study strengths include successful randomization and good adherence to protocol. Study weaknesses include the fact that that there might have been a bias to intermittent therapy, since "remarkably," only 3.3% of patients crossed from intermittent therapy to continuous therapy and, "surprisingly," 9.7% of patients crossed over in the opposite direction. A second difficulty is that the dose of dialysate was not specified in the protocol, they noted.

The editorialists add, "Nevertheless, Vinsonneau's study suggests that improved survival depends on how renal support is provided — as shown by the improvement over time in the intermittent-dialysis arm. More research is needed." They conclude: "Practical questions, such as whether a patient will do better with continuous therapy or intermittent therapy, remain unanswered. Unfortunately, protocols that force the use of one therapy or the other will not answer these questions."

Lancet. 2006;368:379-385, 344-345.

声明:该作品系作者结合法律法规,政府官网及互联网相关知识整合,如若内容错误请通过【投诉】功能联系删除.

相关知识推荐