The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial
2019; 23 (2): 223?29
The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.
Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis
Timing of initiation of dialysis: time for a new direction?
CURRENT OPINION IN NEPHROLOGY AND HYPERTENSION
2012; 21 (3): 329-333
INTRODUCTION: A majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis (HD) require several hours to recover from an HD session. Patients and caregivers identify fatigue as a high priority for improvement. However, evidence for practical interventions to improve recovery time from conventional in-center HD is lacking. The effect of blood flow rate reduction on dialysis recovery time (DRT) is unknown.METHODS: Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-design controlled trial of blood flow rate reduction vs. usual care. One-hundred two patients with ESRD undergoing maintenance HD in 18 centers with baseline DRT of greater than 6 hours were included as subjects. The intervention was a blood flow rate reduction of 100mL/min, to a minimum of 300mL/min. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in DRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in London Evaluation of Illness (LEVIL) survey responses from baseline.FINDINGS: Baseline median DRT was 720 (IQR 360-1013) minutes in controls and 720 (IQR 360-1106) minutes in the intervention group. DRT decreased in both groups. Mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) at Week 4 in the study was -324 (-473, -175) minutes in the control group and -120 (-329, 90) minutes in the intervention group. The change from baseline was more profound in the control group (P=0.05). Secondary outcomes of measures of quality of life reported on the LEVIL survey showed more improvement in patients' feelings of general well-being in the control group (P=0.01). Differences between groups in pain, feeling washed out or drained, sleep quality, shortness of breath, and appetite were not statistically significant.DISCUSSION: Blood flow rate reduction did not improve DRT over usual care. Though more work needs to be done to address patient-reported fatigue, a significant positive impact may not be achieved without substantial changes in dialysis prescription.
View details for PubMedID 30834652
Reversible hepatic and lipid abnormalities with nonprescription anabolic-androgenic steroid use in 2 HIV-infected men
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
2006; 42 (1): 151-152
The past 15 years have seen tremendous growth in the initiation of dialysis at higher levels of kidney function in the setting of mixed evidence and at great societal economic cost. We review recent data on the early dialysis initiation trend, the clinical and economic impact of early dialysis initiation and the future implications for the management of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).The percentage of patients who initiate dialysis with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 10 ?ml/min/1.73m(2) is now greater than 50%, including 20% who initiate with an eGFR above 15 ml/min/1.73m(2). The drivers behind these findings are probably diverse but recent literature does not seem to support a higher symptom burden among the ageing CKD population as the major cause. The Initiating Dialysis Early And Late (IDEAL) trial provides guidance on the safety of waiting for symptoms or lower levels of estimated glomerular filtration rate prior to beginning dialysis. In addition, economic analyses based on the IDEAL and US Renal Data System findings suggest that significant cost savings could be achieved by reversing the early initiation trend.These findings should help clinicians and policy makers looking to rein in costs while maintaining the quality of CKD care.
View details for DOI 10.1097/MNH.0b013e328351c244
View details for Web of Science ID 000302769500014
View details for PubMedID 22388556
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3458516