Table 2 Comparison of studies of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the management of myoglobinuric acute renal failure
Reference | Subject(s) | Mode of RRT | Filter used | Sieving coefficient (%) | Myoglobin removal (g/day) | Clearance (ml/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Present study | Single patient with ARF due to rhabdomyolysis | CVVH, 2 l exchange | Polysulphone (APS) | <0.23 | 1.1 | <8 |
SHF CVVH, 3–4 l exchange | Gambro Polyflux P2SH | 0.69–0.72 | 4.3–5.1 | 30.5–39.2 | ||
[8] | Three patients with myoglobinuric ARF | Continuous hemodiafiltration | Hospal AN 69S | 0.21* | 1.8 | 4.6 |
[9] | Swine model of myoglobinuric ARF | CAVH | Hospal AN 69S | 0.15 | 1.64 (0.41 g/6 hours) | 1.42 ± 1.03 |
[10] | Swine model | CVVH | Hospal AN 69HF | 0.36–0.55 | 2.3–3.8 (0.95 g/6 hours) | 11.2–25.2 |
[11] | Single patient with ARF due to rhabdomyolysis | CVVH | Hospal AN69 Multiflow 100 | 0.40–0.60 | 1.05 (0.7 g/16 hours) | 14–22 |
[19] | Patient with malignant hyperthermia and rhabdomyolysis | CVVH | Gambro polyflux 11S | 0.37 | 4.3 | 11* |