Supplementary Material for: Intermittent Convective Therapies in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Introduction: In critically ill patients requiring intermittent renal replacement therapy (RRT), the benefits of convective versus diffusive clearance remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety, clinical efficacy, and clearance efficiency of hemofiltration (HF) and hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving intermittent RRT. Method: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO. We included clinical trials and observational studies that reported the use of intermittent HF or HDF in adult patients with AKI. The following outcomes were included: mortality, renal recovery, clearance efficacy, intradialytic hemodynamic stability, circuit loss, and inflammation modulation. Results: A total of 3,169 studies were retrieved and screened. Four randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies were included (n: 615 patients). Compared with conventional HD, intermittent convective therapies had no effect on in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76–1.99), renal recovery at 30 days (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82–1.16), time-to-renal recovery (mean difference [MD], 0.77; 95% CI, −6.56 to 8.10), and number of dialysis sessions until renal recovery (MD, −1.34; 95% CI, −3.39 to 0.72). The overall quality of included studies was low, and dialysis parameters were suboptimal for all included studies. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in short-term mortality and renal recovery in patients with severe AKI when treated with intermittent HF or HDF compared to conventional HD. This systematic review emphasizes the need for further trials evaluating optimal convective parameters in AKI patients treated with intermittent dialysis.