VP149 Sustained Low Efficiency Dialysis (SLED): A Rapid Review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

This rapid review aimed to determine the effectiveness of Sustained Low Efficiency Dialysis (SLED) when compared to Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) and Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration (CVVH) in the treatment of acute renal failure (ARF) with a view to implementing SLED in a tertiary hospital in 2014.

METHODS:

A rapid review was performed on the effect of SLED for patients with ARF compared with CRRT or CVVH. The outcomes of interest were mortality, hemodynamic stability, reduced utilization of intensive care unit (ICU) and cost-effectiveness. The search terms ("sustained low-efficiency dialysis[MESH]”) were used to search PubMed, the Cochrane Library, UK NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases and the US National Guidelines Clearinghouse for relevant articles until 2014.

RESULTS:

Four observational and two randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were found. The results showed that 90-day mortality, was similar between groups (SLED: 49.6 percent versus CVVH: 55.6 percent, p = .43). Hemodynamic stability did not differ between SLED and CVVH and between SLED and CRRT. Patients in the SLED group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation (17.7 ± 19.4 versus 20.9 ± 19.8, p = .047) and fewer days in the ICU (19.6 ± 20.1 versus 23.7 ± 21.9, p = .04). Patients treated with SLED needed fewer blood transfusions (1,375 ± 2,573 ml versus 1,976 ± 3,316 ml, p = .02) and had a substantial reduction in nursing time (p < .001). The hospital weekly costs were CAD1,431 for SLED, CAD2,607 for CRRT with heparin, and CAD 3,089 for CRRT with citrate. Dialysis using SLED was associated with higher first post-dialysis mean arterial pressure (p = .003) than those treated with CVVH, which led to lower mortality.

CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence suggests that SLED can be used as an alternative to CRRT, as the outcomes were similar. SLED provides solute removal equivalent to CRRT at significantly lower cost.