Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2015
High versus low dialysate sodium concentration in chronic haemodialysis patients: a systematic review of 23 studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Basile Carlo, Pisano Anna, Lisi Piero, Rossi Luigi, Lomonte Carlo, Bolignano Davide
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is the object of debate whether a low or high dialysate sodium concentration (DNa(+)) should be advocated in chronic haemodialysis patients. In this paper, we aimed at evaluating benefits and harms of different DNa(+) prescriptions through a systematic review of the available literature.
METHODS: MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies comparing low or high DNa(+) prescriptions. Outcomes of interest were mortality, blood pressure (BP), interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), plasma sodium, hospitalizations, use of anti-hypertensive agents and intradialytic complications.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (76 635 subjects) were reviewed. There was high heterogeneity in the number of patients analysed, overall study quality, duration of follow-up, DNa(+) and even in the definition of 'high' or 'low' DNa(+). The only three studies looking at mortality were observational. The risk of death was related to the plasma-DNa(+) gradient, but was also shown to be confounded by indication from the dialysate sodium prescription itself. BP was not markedly affected by high or low DNa(+). Patients treated with higher DNa(+) had overall higher IDWG when compared with those with lower DNa(+). Three studies reported a significant increase in intra-dialytic hypotensive episodes in patients receiving low DNa(+). Data on hospitalizations and use of anti-hypertensive agents were sparse and inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no definite evidence proving the superiority of a low or high uniform DNa(+) on hard or surrogate endpoints in maintenance haemodialysis patients. Future trials adequately powered to evaluate the impact of different DNa(+) on mortality or other patient-centred outcomes are needed.
METHODS: MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies comparing low or high DNa(+) prescriptions. Outcomes of interest were mortality, blood pressure (BP), interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), plasma sodium, hospitalizations, use of anti-hypertensive agents and intradialytic complications.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (76 635 subjects) were reviewed. There was high heterogeneity in the number of patients analysed, overall study quality, duration of follow-up, DNa(+) and even in the definition of 'high' or 'low' DNa(+). The only three studies looking at mortality were observational. The risk of death was related to the plasma-DNa(+) gradient, but was also shown to be confounded by indication from the dialysate sodium prescription itself. BP was not markedly affected by high or low DNa(+). Patients treated with higher DNa(+) had overall higher IDWG when compared with those with lower DNa(+). Three studies reported a significant increase in intra-dialytic hypotensive episodes in patients receiving low DNa(+). Data on hospitalizations and use of anti-hypertensive agents were sparse and inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no definite evidence proving the superiority of a low or high uniform DNa(+) on hard or surrogate endpoints in maintenance haemodialysis patients. Future trials adequately powered to evaluate the impact of different DNa(+) on mortality or other patient-centred outcomes are needed.