Suppr超能文献

白蛋白与生理盐水治疗透析中低血压的随机对照试验

A randomized, controlled trial of albumin versus saline for the treatment of intradialytic hypotension.

作者信息

Knoll Greg A, Grabowski Jenny A, Dervin Geoffrey F, O'Rourke Keith

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004 Feb;15(2):487-92. doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000108971.98071.f2.

Abstract

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication of hemodialysis. Symptomatic IDH requires the administration of fluid and often results in the early termination of dialysis, both of which may prevent adequate fluid removal. The optimal fluid for the treatment of IDH remains unknown. A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was performed in 72 chronic hemodialysis patients to determine whether 5% albumin was more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved, which was defined as the actual ultrafiltration volume divided by target ultrafiltration volume. Secondary outcome measures included postdialysis BP, time to restore BP, recurrent IDH, and treatment failure (inability to restore BP with 750 ml of study fluid). The percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved was 0.84 +/- 0.17 for 5% albumin compared with 0.80 +/- 0.16 for saline (P = 0.14). The postdialysis systolic BP (121 +/- 19 mmHg versus 117 +/- 19 mmHg; P = 0.32), postdialysis diastolic BP (63 +/- 9 mmHg versus 61 +/- 9 mmHg; P = 0.33), volume of study fluid used to treat IDH (403 +/- 170 ml versus 428 +/- 191 ml; P = 0.34), time required to restore the BP (7.9 +/- 6.6 min versus 9.9 +/- 7.5 min; P = 0.09), total nursing time required to manage the hypotensive episode (15.1 +/- 7.2 min versus 15.9 +/- 7.3 min; P = 0.47), number of treatment failures (22% versus 24%; P = 1.0), and the frequency of recurrent IDH (36% versus 36%) were not significantly different when 5% albumin was used compared with saline. It is concluded that 5% albumin is no more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH in chronic hemodialysis patients. Normal saline should be used as the initial fluid for the treatment of IDH.

摘要

透析中低血压(IDH)是血液透析最常见的并发症。有症状的IDH需要补液,且常导致透析提前终止,这两者都可能妨碍充分的液体清除。治疗IDH的最佳液体尚不清楚。对72例慢性血液透析患者进行了一项随机、双盲、交叉试验,以确定5%白蛋白治疗IDH是否比生理盐水更有效。主要结局指标是达到目标超滤的百分比,定义为实际超滤量除以目标超滤量。次要结局指标包括透析后血压、血压恢复时间、复发性IDH和治疗失败(用750 ml研究液体无法恢复血压)。5%白蛋白达到目标超滤的百分比为0.84±0.17,而生理盐水为0.80±0.16(P = 0.14)。与生理盐水相比,使用5%白蛋白时,透析后收缩压(121±19 mmHg对117±19 mmHg;P = 0.32)、透析后舒张压(63±9 mmHg对61±9 mmHg;P = 0.33)、用于治疗IDH的研究液体量(403±170 ml对428±191 ml;P = 0.34)、恢复血压所需时间(7.9±6.6分钟对9.9±7.5分钟;P = 0.09)、处理低血压发作所需的总护理时间(15.1±7.2分钟对15.9±7.3分钟;P = 0.47)、治疗失败次数(22%对24%;P = 1.0)以及复发性IDH的频率(36%对36%)均无显著差异。结论是,在慢性血液透析患者中,5%白蛋白治疗IDH并不比生理盐水更有效。生理盐水应用作治疗IDH的初始液体。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验