Design and Challenges of the Randomized Evaluation of Normal Versus Augmented Level Replacement Therapy (RENAL) Trial: High-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Hemofiltration in Acute Renal Failure

Sunny Eloot,Wim Van Biesen,Annemieke Dhondt,E. Billiet,Pascal Verdonck,Raymond Vanholder,Martin Válek,František Lopot,Sylvie Dusilová‐Sulková,Vladimír Polakovič,R. T. Noel Gibney,Sean M. Bagshaw,Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis,Christopher Johnston,Maria Alquist,Juan Bosch,Na Jiang,Jiaqi Qian,Aiwu Lin,Bengt Lindholm,Jonas Axelsson,Qiang Yao,Jongha Park,Hyun Chul Chung,Jong Soo Lee,Byeong Man Lee,Dong‐Min Kim,Jae Cheol Hwang,Min‐Woo Jo,Maengseok Noh,Jung Woo Shin,Jihong Yang,Lei Cheng,Yan Gu,Lijun Tang,Tao Wang,Marianne Lindholm,H.F. Woods,Chen Ting Cheng,Po Sung Lim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000148400
2008-01-01
Blood Purification
Abstract:The optimal dose of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in acute renal failure (ARF) is uncertain.The Randomized Evaluation of Normal versus Augmented Level Replacement Therapy Trial tests the hypothesis that higher dose continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) at an effluent rate of 40 ml/kg/h will increase survival compared to CVVHDF at 25 ml/kg/h of effluent dose.This trial is currently randomizing critically ill patients in 35 intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand with a planned sample size of 1,500 patients. This trial will be the largest trial ever conducted on acute blood purification in critically ill patients.A trial of this magnitude and with demanding technical requirements poses design difficulties and challenges in the logistics, conduct, data collection, data analysis and monitoring. Our report will assist in the development of future trials of blood purification in intensive care.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?