Critically ill patients often develop multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is part of it. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains the primary choice of treatment in severely ill patients who develop AKI. Recent data have shown increased use of RRT in AKI patients. Therefore, the right choice of RRT plays an important role in the renal recovery of such patients. The question of which mode of RRT to apply has been the topic of study in the last two decades. Whether RRT should be conducted in intermittent mode, as intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), or in continuous mode, as continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), is still being investigated. CRRT has a hypothetical advantage when compared to IHD, as it involves a process in which there is gradual removal of fluids, better control of urea, better maintenance of the acid/base balance, and hemodynamic stability. However, IHD is more practical, cost-effective, does not require anticoagulation, decreases the bleeding risk, and removes the solute efficiently and rapidly in acute life-threatening conditions. Other modalities of RRT like sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) and prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT) have shown to encompass the benefits of both CRRT in terms of hemodynamic stability and IHD in terms of cost-efficiency. Although SLEDD is progressively being used as an alternative to CRRT and IHD, very few studies have shown to support it. In this article, we try to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques used in RRT. With SLEDD gaining more popularity among the different modalities of RRT, we want to assess the possibility of its routine implementation as the single-best choice for RRT.
Keywords: acute kidney injury; continuous renal replacement therapy; effectiveness; intermittent hemodialysis; renal failure; renal recovery; renal replacement therapy.
Copyright © 2019, Fathima et al.