Skip to content


  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Dialytic techniques in critical patients: slow low-efficient daily dialysis or CVVHDF?

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Critical Care200610 (Suppl 1) :P293

  • Published:


  • Heparin
  • Nurse Care
  • Economic Advantage
  • Unstable Patient
  • Continuous Method


In critically unstable patients, conventional dialysis is difficult to perform and continuous methods have been the treatment of choice. The use of mixed dialytic techniques such as slow low-efficient daily dialysis (SLEDD) offers the combined advantages of conventional haemodialysis and continuous dialytic techniques.


To compare the costs/efficacy/efficiency as well as nurse care between SLEDD and continuous techniques (CVVHDF).

Materials and methods

A retrospective and comparative study was performed considering both methods from 1 October 2003 to 31 March 2004. The study evaluated the following parameters: number of patients enrolled, age, gender, number of procedures, APACHE II score, SAPS II score, heparin consumption, volume extracted, duration of procedures, blood pumping speed, BUN clearance and costs.


The authors compared SLEDD with 24-hour CVVHDF. The urea clarification rate with SLEDD was 48.3% compared with 37% with CVVHDF; creatinine clearance in SLEDD was 43% compared with 31.7% with CVVHDF; economic advantages were also compared per technique (€37.50 vs €235 in SLEDD and CVVHDF, respectively). Heparin used in SLEDD was 4400 IU compared with 12,000 in CVVHDF.


SLEDD was more efficient in removing urea and creatinine and was well tolerated in haemodynamically unstable patients. Each SLEDD session was six times less expensive than each 24-hour session of CVVHDF. SLEDD also permitted access to daily dialysis in more patients, a lower nurse workload and better time management in patient care.

Authors’ Affiliations

ICU, Hospital Curry Cabral, Lisbon, Portugal


© BioMed Central Ltd 2006