{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03373015873015873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025793650793650792, 'mean_word_length': 4.709433962264151, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost analysis of blood purification in intensive care units: continuous versus intermittent hemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND
We implemented a program for continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) in intensive care units (ICU) based on the cooperative work of dialysis and ICU personnel. Our aim was to report the main details of this program and compare its cost with that of intermittent hemodiafiltration (IHDF).


METHODS
The study referred to 181 ICU patients with renal failure. We considered the costs of both technical devices and assisting personnel. CRRT was performed as continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) (24 hr daily); dialysis and ICU nurses shared surveillance. Only dialysis nurses performed IHDF (as acetate-free biofiltration, 4 hr daily) in the ICU.


RESULTS
The daily cost of CRRT was Euro 276.70; of which 79% was for devices and 21% was for human resources. Nurse surveillance required 141 min per day, ICU nurses supplied 55% (77 min) and dialysis nurses 45% (64 min). On average, CRRT surveillance required less than 1 min/nurse/hr for both dialysis and ICU nurses. The daily cost of 4-hr IHDF sessions of was Euro 247.83, of which 44% was for technical devices and 56% was for human resources.


CONCLUSIONS
The cooperation between dialysis and ICUs improved the use of human resources and allowed us to supply CRRT to all critically ill patients with acute renal failure. The expenditure for CRRT was 12% higher than that for IHDF, due to the cost of technical devices.