Objective: Renal replacement therapy [RRT] is a complex procedure in critically-ill patients. None of the available techniques has been shown to be superior in terms of a reduction of mortality rate. We assessed clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality within 30 days of continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration [CVVHDF] and sustained low-efficiency dialysis [SLED].
Materials and Methods: Medical history, findings from physical examination and laboratory investigations, and clinical outcomes of critically-ill patients who had continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration [CVVHDF] or sustained low-efficiency dialysis [SLED] were compared.
Results: Of 27 patients with acute kidney injury [AKI], 12 were treated with CVVHDF and 15 with SLED. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (75.0% in the CVVHDF group compared with 73.3% in the SLED group, p = 0.922). There were also no significant differences in duration of ICU or hospital stay, renal recovery or the incidence of RRT-related complications between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: In critically-ill patients with AKI, CVVHDF and SLED were comparable in terms of mortality and recovery of renal function.

Keywords: Acute kidney injury, Adequacy of dialysis, Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration, Sustained low-efficiency dialysis, Intermittent hemodialysis