Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis · 2021
Physical examination for the detection of hypervolemia among patients on chronic dialysis: A diagnostic-test study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Tsikliras Nikolaos C, Georgianos Panagiotis I, Vaios Vasilios, Kousoula Varvara, Kirgialanis Apostolos, Chatzidimitriou Christos, Mavromatidis Kostantinos, Liakopoulos Vassilios, Zebekakis Pantelis E, Balaskas Elias V
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of dry-weight among patients on dialysis is challenging in the absence of reliable markers to define fluid overload (FO). This study aimed to explore the value of two simple clinical signs, pedal edema, and crackles at pulmonary auscultation, in diagnosing hypervolemia, using bioimpendence spectroscopy (BIS) as reference standard.
METHODS: In a cohort of 107 asymptomatic dialysis patients, FO was assessed with physical examination and BIS shortly before the mid-week dialysis session. Patients were also asked to perform home blood pressure (BP) monitoring with a validated, automatic device (HEM-705, Omron, Healthcare) for 1 week in order to determine their BP outside of dialysis.
FINDINGS: Patients within the high tertile of predialysis FO had longer dialysis vintage, lower serum albumin and higher home systolic BP, despite the more aggressive treatment with a higher average number of antihypertensives daily. In receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, pedal edema (area under curve [AUC]: 0.534; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416-0.651) and pulmonary crackles (AUC: 0.551; 95% CI: 0.432-0.671) had limited accuracy in detecting excess predialysis FO > 2.2 L. The agreement of pedal edema (k-coefficient: 0.065) and pulmonary crackles (k-coefficient: 0.122) with BIS-derived FO was poor. In multivariate linear regression analysis, longer dialysis vintage (β: 0.306, p < 0.001) and higher home systolic BP (β: 0.287, p < 0.01) were the two factors that were associated with predialysis FO.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that among asymptomatic dialysis patients, pedal edema and pulmonary crackles in physical examination had limited discriminatory power in detection of FO, as assessed with the method of BIS.
METHODS: In a cohort of 107 asymptomatic dialysis patients, FO was assessed with physical examination and BIS shortly before the mid-week dialysis session. Patients were also asked to perform home blood pressure (BP) monitoring with a validated, automatic device (HEM-705, Omron, Healthcare) for 1 week in order to determine their BP outside of dialysis.
FINDINGS: Patients within the high tertile of predialysis FO had longer dialysis vintage, lower serum albumin and higher home systolic BP, despite the more aggressive treatment with a higher average number of antihypertensives daily. In receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, pedal edema (area under curve [AUC]: 0.534; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416-0.651) and pulmonary crackles (AUC: 0.551; 95% CI: 0.432-0.671) had limited accuracy in detecting excess predialysis FO > 2.2 L. The agreement of pedal edema (k-coefficient: 0.065) and pulmonary crackles (k-coefficient: 0.122) with BIS-derived FO was poor. In multivariate linear regression analysis, longer dialysis vintage (β: 0.306, p < 0.001) and higher home systolic BP (β: 0.287, p < 0.01) were the two factors that were associated with predialysis FO.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that among asymptomatic dialysis patients, pedal edema and pulmonary crackles in physical examination had limited discriminatory power in detection of FO, as assessed with the method of BIS.