Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFealy, Nigel
dc.contributor.authorAitken, Leanne
dc.contributor.authordu Toit, Eugene
dc.contributor.authorBaldwin, Ian
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-30T12:31:41Z
dc.date.available2017-10-30T12:31:41Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1441-2772
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/156404
dc.description.abstractBackground: The publication of large multicentre studies devoted to Continuous Renal Replacement Therapies (CRRT) in critically ill patients may influence the bedside prescription and practical application of the treatment. Despite this, many aspects of this therapy may not be informed by evidence, but remain a product of clinician preference. Little is known about the current CRRT practice in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) ICUs and it is not known if the evidence from recent studies has been integrated into practice. Design and Setting: A prospective on-line survey of CRRT practice was sent to ICU clinicians (medical and nursing) via three different national databases in ANZ ICUs during December 2013 to March 2014. Results: There were 194 respondents from 106 ICUs: 49 ICUs (47%) were in tertiary metropolitan hospitals. One hundred and two respondents (52%) reported CVVHDF as the most common CRRT technique with the combination of pre and post-dilution of replacement solutions. There is variability in the prescription of dosing for CRRT with respondents indicating the therapy based on litres per hour (53%) or a weight adjusted treatment in mls/kg/hr (47%). For all modes of CRRT, the common blood flow rates applied were 100-150 and 150-200 ml/min; with few respondents reporting flow rates < 150 or > 300 ml/min. Unfractionated heparin was the most common (83%) anticoagulant followed by regional citrate. Femoral vascular access was preferred and typically a 20cm length device inserted with Bard Niagara® and Arrow® access catheters most frequently used. The Baxter/Gambro Prismaflex was the dominant machine platform with 71% of respondents indicating its use in their ICUs. Conclusions: These results provide insight into existing clinical management of CRRT. Considerable variation still exists in the practical prescription of CRRT in ANZ ICUs.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherAustralasian Medical Publishing Company
dc.publisher.placeAustralia
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.cicm.org.au/Resources/Publications/Journal
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom83
dc.relation.ispartofpageto91
dc.relation.ispartofissue2
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCritical Care and Resuscitation
dc.relation.ispartofvolume17
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNursing
dc.subject.fieldofresearchAcute care
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4205
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode420501
dc.titleContinuous renal replacement therapy: current practice in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery
gro.rights.copyright© 2015 JFICM. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorDu Toit, Eugene


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record