procon debate continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute kidney injury a never-ending story yet approaching the finish圣保罗市辩论连续与间歇透析急性肾损伤一个没完没了的故事但接近终点.pdfVIP

Vanholder et al. Critical Care 2011, 15:204 /content/15/1/204 R E V I E W Pro/con debate: Continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute kidney injury: a never-ending story yet approaching the i nish? 1 1 2 1 Raymond Vanholder *, Wim Van Biesen , Eric Hoste and Norbert Lameire Introduction Abstract Few topics in nephrology have been the subject of so The question of whether renal replacement therapy many randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses should be applied in an intermittent or continuous and reviews than that of extracorporeal renal replacement mode to the patient with acute kidney injury has been in acute kidney injury (AKI). Since the introduction of the topic of several controlled studies and meta- hemodialysis as a valid treatment for renal failure by Kolff analyses. Although continuous renal replacement in the early 1940s [1], intermittent renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has a theoretical advantage due to therapy (IRRT) was off ered as a bridge until recovery of of ering the opportunity to remove excess l uid more kidney function; fi rst in a low-efficient and therefore gradually, none of the several outcome studies that protracted version, later becoming progressively shorter. have been undertaken in the meanwhile was able In the 1980s, Kramer and colleagues introduced con tinu- to demonstrate its superiority over intermittent renal ous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) as an alternative, replacement