PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2026Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis0 citationsOpen Access

Diffusive Versus Convective Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

View Full Paper
FMFatima MasudAAAbdul Rehman ArshadSSSohail Sabir

Key Points

  • This review aims to determine if the type of solute clearance in continuous renal replacement therapy impacts mortality and renal recovery in acute kidney injury.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials.
  • Searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and LILACS until April 2025.
  • Assessed risk of bias using Cochrane ROB 2 and ROBINS‐I tools.
  • Diffusive modality showed no advantage over convective modality regarding overall mortality (RR = 1.04).
  • No significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two modalities (RR = 1.19).
  • Renal recovery rates were similar for both modalities (RR = 1.07).
  • Diffusive modality resulted in 31% less frequent filter clotting (RR = 0.69).

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction This review assesses whether the mode of solute clearance in continuous renal replacement therapy influences mortality and renal recovery. Methods The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251030433). PubMed, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases were searched until April 24, 2025. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing diffusive and convective strategies of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane ROB 2 and ROBINS‐I tools. Results Thirteen studies with 1146 patients were included. Diffusive modality had no advantage over convective modality with regards to mortality in intensive care unit (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.30; p = 0.73), 28‐day mortality (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.59; p = 0.25), renal recovery (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.75; p = 0.79), or the length of stay in intensive care unit (SMD = 0.16 days; 95% CI: −0.17, 0.49; p = 0.33). Filter clotting was 31% less frequent in diffusive modality (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.81; p < 0.001). Conclusion Diffusive modalities of continuous renal replacement therapy are not different from convective modalities in terms of mortality and renal recovery. However, they have the advantage of a longer filter lifespan resulting from less frequent clotting.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Masud et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699a9d8e482488d673cd377ahttps://doi.org/10.1002/1744-9987.70128
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper