Introduction: Continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRTs) require constant monitoring and periodic treatment readjustments, being applied to highly complex patients, with rapidly changing clinical needs. To promote precision medicine in the field of renal replacement therapy and encourage dynamic prescription, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) recommends periodically measuring the solutes extracorporeal clearance with the aim of assessing the current treatment delivery and the gap from the therapeutic prescription (often intended as effluent dose). To perform this procedure, it is therefore necessary to obtain blood and effluent samples from the extracorporeal circuit to measure the concentrations of a target solute (usually represented by urea) in prefilter, postfilter, and effluent lines. However, samples must be collected simultaneously from the extracorporeal circuit ports, with the same suction flow at an unknown rate. Methods: The proposed study takes the first step toward identifying the technical factors that should be considered in determining the optimal suction rate to collect samples from the extracorporeal circuit to measure the extracorporeal clearance for a specific solute. Results: The results obtained identify the low suction rate (i.e., 1 mL/min) as an ideal parameter for an adequate sampling method. Low velocities do not perturb the external circulation system and ensure stability prevailing pressures in the circuit. Higher velocities can be performed only with blood flows above 120 mL/min preferably in conditions of appropriate filtration fraction. Discussion/Conclusions: The specific value of aspiration flow rate must be proportioned to the prescription of CRRT treatments set by the clinician.

1.
Neri M, Villa G, Garzotto F, Bagshaw S, Bellomo R, Cerda J, et al. Nomenclature Standardization Initiative (NSI) alliance. Nomenclature for renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: basic principles. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):318.
2.
Cerdá J, Villa G, Neri M, Ronco C. Technology in medicine: moving towards precision management of acute kidney injury. Contrib Nephrol. 2018;193:89–99.
3.
Shin J, Song HC, Hwang JH, Kim SH. Impact of downtime on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. ASAIO J. 2022;68(5):744–52.
4.
Bell M, Broman M, Joannes-Boyau O, Ronco C. Comparison of the accuracy of the novel PrisMax continuous renal replacement therapy system to the classic Prismaflex system. Blood Purif. 2019;47(1–3):166–70.
5.
Schläpfer P, Durovray J-D, Plouhinec V, Chiappa C, Bellomo R, Schneider A. A first evaluation of OMNI®, A new device for continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood Purif. 2017;43(1–3):11–7.
6.
Villa G, Fabbri S, Samoni S, Cecchi M, Fioccola A, Scirè-Calabrisotto C, et al. Methods for dose quantification in continuous renal replacement therapy: toward a more precise approach. Artif Organs. 2021;45(11):1300–7.
7.
Rewa OG, Tolwani A, Mottes T, Juncos LA, Ronco C, Kashani K, et al. Quality of care and safety measures of acute renal replacement therapy: workgroup statements from the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative ( ADQI ) consensus conference. J Crit Care. 2019;54:52–7.
8.
Villa G, Neri M, De Rosa S, Samoni S, Chelazzi C, Romagnoli S, et al. Albumin loss and citrate load in pre-dilution high cut-off-CVVHDF with regional citrate (18 mmol/L) and high cut-off CVVHD with systemic heparin : an in vitro study. Blood Purif. 2018;46(3):205–13.
You do not currently have access to this content.