| Honoré et al. 2000 [18] | Cole et al. 2001 [15] | Joannes-Boyau et al. 2004 [12] | Ratanarat et al. 2005 [19] | Cornejo et al. 2006 [14] | Piccinni et al. 2006 [13] | Boussekey et al. 2008 [16] | Joannes-Boyau et al. 2013 [17] (IVOIRE) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study design | Cohort, uncontrolled prospective | Randomized crossover | Cohort, uncontrolled prospective | Cohort, uncontrolled prospective | Cohort, uncontrolled prospective | Retrospective | Prospective randomized study | Prospective, randomized, open, multicenter |
Study population (n) | 20 septic shock patients | 11 septic shock patients | 24 septic shock patients | 15 severe sepsis patients | 20 septic shock patients | 80 septic shock patients | 20 septic shock patients and AKI | 140 septic shock patients and AKI |
Prescribed dose | HVHF (4 h, 35 L of UF removed) followed by conventional CVVH for at least 4 days | 8 h of HVHF (6 L/h) or 8 h of standard CVVH (1 L/h) | 40–60 ml/kg/h for 96 h | HVHF 85 ml/kg/h for 6–8 h followed by CVVH 35 ml/kg/h for 16–18 h | 100 ml/kg/h Single session of 12 h | HVHF (40 patients) at 45 ml/kg/h over 6 h followed by conventional CVVH compared to 40 historic patients treated with conventional therapy | HVHF 65 ml/(kg h) vs LVHF 35 ml/(kg h) | HVHF at 70 ml/kg/h vs SVHF at 35 ml/kg/h for 96 h |
Survival/mortality | 28-day observed survival of 45% compared to expected of 21% (p < 0.05) | Hospital mortality 54.5% | 28-day mortality of 46% compared to predicted mortality of 70% (p < 0.075) | 28-day mortality of 47% compared to predicted mortality of 68–72% | Observed hospital survival of 60% compared to expected survival of 37% (p < 0.03) | 28-day survival of 55% compared to 27.5% in the conventional group (p < 0.05) | • ICU mortality of 33.3% in HVHF group vs 60% in LVHF group but not significantly different • 28-day mortality of 33.3% in the HVHF • group vs 50% in the LVHF group | • 28 day mortality of 37.9% in HVHF vs 40.8% in SVHF, (p = 0.94) • No difference in 60 and 90 days mortality |
Length of ICU stay | – | – | – | – | – | Significant improvement (p < 0.002) | No difference | No difference |
Hemodynamics | Improvement in 11/20 patients | Greater reduction in NE, HVHF vs standard CVVH (68% vs 7%; p = 0.02) | Significant improvement (p < 0.05) | Significant improvement (p = 0.001) | Improvement in 11/20 patients | Significant improvement (p < 0.05) | Improvement in VP dose in the treatment group (p = 0.004) | No difference |
Safety | – | No AE | – | – | – | – | No AE | Hypokalemia (30% in HVHF vs 20% in SVHF (p = 0.1) Hypophosphatemia 88% in HVH vs 38 in SVHF (p = 0.01) |