Intermittent and continuous renal replacement therapies (RRTs) are available for the treatment of acute renal failure (ARF) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although at present there are no adequately powered survival studies, available data suggest that both methods are equal with respect to patient outcome. Therefore, cost comparison between techniques is important for selecting the modality. Expenditures were prospectively assessed as a secondary end point during a controlled, randomized trial comparing intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). The outcome of the primary end points of this trial, that is, ICU and in-hospital mortality, has been previously published. One hundred twenty-five patients from a Swiss university hospital ICU were randomized either to CVVHDF or IHD. Out of these, 42 (CVVHDF) and 34 (IHD) were available for cost analysis. Patients' characteristics, delivered dialysis dose, duration of stay in the ICU or hospital, mortality rates, and recovery of renal function were not different between the two groups. Detailed 24-h time and material consumption protocols were available for 369 (CVVHDF) and 195 (IHD) treatment days. The mean daily duration of CVVHDF was 19.5 +/- 3.2 h/day, resulting in total expenditures of Euro 436 +/- 21 (21% for human resources and 79% for technical devices). For IHD (mean 3.0 +/- 0.4 h/treatment), the costs were lower (Euro 268 +/- 26), with a larger proportion for human resources (45%). Nursing time spent for CVVHDF was 113 +/- 50 min, and 198 +/- 63 min per IHD treatment. Total costs for RRT in ICU patients with ARF were lower when treated with IHD than with CVVHDF, and have to be taken into account for the selection of the method of RRT in ARF on the ICU.