Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
192 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-03-21
2021-03-11
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Separation Versus Integrated Approach in Combining ECMO With CRRT
NCT05036616
Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration Versus Continuous Venovenuous Hemodialysis
NCT01062984
Prospective, Multi-center, Single-arm, Observational Study. US FDA 522 Pediatric Post Market Surveillance Study.
NCT04608149
No Monitoring of Post-filter Ionized Calcium in Regional Citrate Anticoagulation
NCT04792424
Tunneled Dialysis Catheters Versus Non-tunneled Dialysis Catheters as First-line for Renal Replacement Therapy in the ICU
NCT03496935
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
In CVVH, plasma water is removed across the filter using transmembrane pressure which forces fluid into the effluent space. Solutes are removed via "solvent drag", which is the process by which solutes follow fluid flow. The rate of fluid removal is high (usually around 2-3 L/hr), and so hemodynamic collapse would quickly occur in the fluid were not replaced. The patient is therefore given "replacement fluid" which can be given pre-filter or post-filter, and usually nearly matches the fluid removal rate. For instance, if 2 L are removed per hour, 2 L are given back in the form of replacement fluid, if volume neutrality is desired. If fluid removal is desired, 1.9 L (e.g) may be given back, resulting in the net loss of 0.1 L of fluid per hour. The composition of the replacement fluid determines the serum concentration. As an example, if 2 L of fluid with a potassium concentration of 6.0 mmol/L (a high amount, 4.0 is normal) is removed and replaced with 2 L of replacement fluid with a potassium concentration of 2 mmol/L, then 8 mmol of potassium will be "removed" per hour, and the potassium concentration of the serum will fall.
In CVVHD, dialysate flows in the effluent space, creating a gradient which leads to movement of solutes either into or out of the blood, depending on the gradient direction. For instance, if serum has a potassium concentration of 6 mmol/L, and the dialysate has a concentration of 2 mmol/L, potassium will move from the blood into the dialysate, until the dialysate concentration is also equal to 6 mmol/L. At that point, net potassium movement will be 0, as the concentration will be equal. As with CVVH, with a dialysate flow rate of 2 L/hr will result in the removal of 8 mmol of potassium per hour. While these technical details concern only the specialist, the important take away is that both of these modalities achieve equivalent clearance, via different mechanisms. Notably, there are no differences in clinical outcomes with use of one or the other modality, and these modalities are currently thought to have complete equipoise. The decision is generally based on provider comfort and preference. There is no clinical scenario where one modality would be preferable to the other, based on current evidence.
A major issue when using CRRT is filter clotting, which occurs on average every 30 hours. Clotting renders the circuit unusable, and requires that the machine be reset, which is a process that takes 1-2 hours on average, and potentially longer depending on the availability of the dialysis nurses who change the circuits. This results in less delivery of dialysis than what is prescribed, and clotting is often also associated with the loss of the blood that is clotted in the circuit. This could be up to 150 ccs, which is a potentially significant amount in critically ill patients. As noted within the figures, post-filter CVVH is associated with hemoconcentration, and is thought to be associated with more clotting than CVVHD, where no hemoconcentration occurs. The situation is more complicated in pre-filter CVVH, however. As in Figure 3, the fluid is initially diluted, and then the fluid is removed over the course of flow through the filter. Some Nephrologists believe that this initial dilution of the blood results in decreased risk of clotting. However, other nephrologists believe that due to differential flow rates in the blood and replacement fluid that hemoconcentration still occurs within the filter, albeit to a much lesser degree than in post-filter CVVH (this argument is difficult to explain conceptually to a lay audience, but an attempt is made within Figure 3). It is therefore unclear currently whether pre-filter CVVH and CVVHD have equal or unequal rates of clotting. Because centers tend to use exclusively one modality or the other (or a combination, which is beyond the scope of this summary), retrospective analyses are often not possible due to lack of a comparison group.
Figure 3. In pre-filter CVVH, replacement fluid is administered prior to the blood passing through the filter. Nephrologists argue about the effect this has on the rates of hemoconcentration. Some would argue that after the initial dilution, the blood only returns to its initial concentration by the end of the filter, and thus over the course of the filter, there is actually hemodilution that decreases likelihood of clotting. Other nephrologists argue like so: With a blood flow rate of 12 L/hr (standard), and a fluid flow rate of 2 L/hr, then 14 L/hr enter the fluid, and 2 L/hr are removed, which is 14% (2/14) of the fluid that entered. If the fluid flow rate is increased to 4 L/hr, then 16 L /hr enter the filter, and 4L/hr are removed, which is 25% (4/16). This would therefore theoretically result in higher degrees of clotting. The question of pre-filter CVVH and its impact on clotting relative to CVVHD is therefore unanswered, and is the reason for the proposed study."
In short, the investigators plan to start patients who need CRRT on either CVVH or CVVHD by block randomization, and then to measure how often the filters on the machine need to be replaced.
The investigators plan to exclude minors, prisoners, and patients undergoing a certain procedure called "extracorporeal membrane oxygenation" (ECMO). ECMO is designed to pump blood and provide oxygen to the patient when the heart and lungs are not working correctly (ECMO attempts to do the work of the heart and lungs in instances where the patient's organs have failed). CRRT can be added to an ECMO circuit if renal failure is also present, but this is a specialized instance with unique risk factors for clotting, and is not representative of the general CRRT population.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Initiation on CVVH
Patients in this arm were initiated on CVVH, rather than CVVHD
CVVH vs CVVHD
Patients are initiated on CRRT in either the CVVH or CVVHD modality
Initiation on CVVHD
Patients in this arm were initiated on CVVHD, rather than CVVHDH
CVVH vs CVVHD
Patients are initiated on CRRT in either the CVVH or CVVHD modality
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
CVVH vs CVVHD
Patients are initiated on CRRT in either the CVVH or CVVHD modality
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* Minors
* ECMO use at the time of CRRT initiation
18 Years
89 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Iowa
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Benjamin Griffin
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Mann L, Ten Eyck P, Wu C, Story M, Jenigiri S, Patel J, Honkanen I, O'Connor K, Tener J, Sambharia M, Fraer M, Nourredine L, Somers D, Nizar J, Antes L, Kuppachi S, Swee M, Kuo E, Huang CL, Jalal DI, Griffin BR. CVVHD results in longer filter life than pre-filter CVVH: Results of a quasi-randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2023 Jan 11;18(1):e0278550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278550. eCollection 2023.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
201909716
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.