Debate: Intermittent Hemodialysis versus Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient: The Argument for CKRT

Abstract

Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is well entrenched as one of the dominant KRT modalities in modern critical care practice. Since its introduction four decades ago, there have been considerable innovations in CKRT machines that have improved precision, safety, and simplicity. CKRT is the preferred KRT modality for critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability. Early physical therapy and rehabilitation can be feasibly and safely provided to patients connected to CKRT, thus obviating concerns about immobility. Although randomized clinical trials have not shown a mortality difference when comparing CKRT and intermittent hemodialysis, CKRT allows precision delivery of solute and fluid removal that can be readily adjusted in the face of dynamic circumstances. Accumulated evidence from observational studies, although susceptible to bias, has shown that CKRT, when compared with intermittent hemodialysis, is associated with better short- and long-term kidney recovery and KRT independence. Critical care medicine encompasses a wide range of sick patients, and no single KRT modality is likely to ideally suit every patient in every context and for every condition. The provision of KRT represents a spectrum of modalities to which patients can flexibly transition in response to their evolving condition. As a vital tool for organ support in the intensive care unit, CKRT enables the personalization of KRT to meet the clinical demands of patients during the most severe phases of their illness.