JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Demographic characteristics of pediatric continuous renal replacement therapy: a report of the prospective pediatric continuous renal replacement therapy registry.

BACKGROUND: This article reports demographic characteristics and intensive care unit survival for 344 patients from the Prospective Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (ppCRRT) Registry, a voluntary multicenter observational network.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Ages were newborn to 25 yr, 58% were male, and weights were 1.3 to 160 kg. Patients spent a median of 2 d in the intensive care unit before CRRT (range 0 to 135). At CRRT initiation, 48% received diuretics and 66% received vasoactive drugs. Mean blood flow was 97.9 ml/min (range 10 to 350 ml/min; median 100 ml/min); mean blood flow per body weight was 5 ml/min per kg (range 0.6 to 53.6 ml/min per kg; median 4.1 ml/min per kg). Days on CRRT were <1 to 83 (mean 9.1; median 6). A total of 56% of circuits had citrate anticoagulation, 37% had heparin, and 7% had no anticoagulation.

RESULTS: Overall survival was 58%; survival differed across participating centers. Survival was lowest (51%) when CRRT was started for combined fluid overload and electrolyte imbalance. There was better survival in patients with principal diagnoses of drug intoxication (100%), renal disease (84%), tumor lysis syndrome (83%), and inborn errors of metabolism (73%); survival was lowest in liver disease/transplant (31%), pulmonary disease/transplant (45%), and bone marrow transplant (45%). Overall survival was better for children who weighed >10 kg (63 versus 43%; P = 0.001) and for those who were older than 1 yr (62 versus 44%; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS: CRRT can be used successfully for a wide range of critically ill children. Survival is best for those who have acute, specific abnormalities and lack multiple organ involvement; sicker patients with selected diagnoses may have lower survival. Center differences might suggest opportunities to define best practices with future study.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app