Debate: Intermittent Hemodialysis versus Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient: The Choice Should Be Evidence Based

Khalil Chaïbi; Didier Dreyfuss; Stéphane Gaudry

doi:10.2215/CJN.0000000000000104

Debate: Intermittent Hemodialysis versus Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient: The Choice Should Be Evidence Based

Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2023 Feb 1;18(5):661-667. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000104. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Khalil Chaïbi^{1

2}, Didier Dreyfuss^{2

3

4}, Stéphane Gaudry^{1

2

5}

Affiliations

¹ AP-HP, Hôpital Avicenne, Service de Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Bobigny, France.
² French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), UMR_S1155, CORAKID, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
³ Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpital Louis Mourier, Assistance Publique, Colombes, France.
⁴ Université de Paris-Cité, Paris, France.
⁵ Health Care Simulation Center, UFR SMBH, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Bobigny, France.

Abstract

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) plays a major role in the treatment of severe AKI. Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) and continuous KRT (CKRT) are the main modalities in critically ill patients with AKI. CKRT is the preferred modality in many countries because of its alleged superiority on both hemodynamic tolerance and on kidney function recovery. In fact, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two modalities have not shown any actual benefit of one technique over the other on mortality, hemodynamics, or kidney function recovery. Those RCTs were conducted more than 15 years ago. Major progress was eventually made leading to much lower mortality rates in recent studies than in previous studies. In addition, those RCTs included a noticeable proportion of patients who could have recovered without ever receiving KRT, as demonstrated by several recent studies. In the absence of evidence of clinical superiority of one KRT modality, the choice must be addressed not only regarding clinical outcome but also resources and logistics. Conclusions of health technology assessments and study reports were heterogeneous and conflicting concerning cost-effectiveness of intermittent HD versus CKRT. All these considerations justify a reevaluation of the issue in new RCTs that take into account recent knowledge on KRT initiation and management. Pending results of such study, the choice should be guided mainly by organizational considerations in each unit and without condemning any modality in the absence of proof.