Suri Rita S, Nesrallah Gihad E, Mainra Rahul, Garg Amit X, Lindsay Robert M, Greene Tom, Daugirdas John T
Division of Nephrology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Jan;1(1):33-42. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00340705. Epub 2005 Nov 16.
Several studies have reported improved outcomes with daily hemodialysis (DHD), but the strength of this evidence has not been evaluated. The published evidence on DHD was synthesized and its quality rated to inform need and sample size calculations for a randomized trial. Citations were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE using validated search strategies. Dialysis journals that were not indexed and bibliographies of relevant articles were hand-searched. Two authors reviewed all citations. Articles that reported original data on five or more adults who were receiving DHD (1.5 to 3 h, 5 to 7 d/wk) for > or = 3 mo were included. Twenty-five articles reporting 14 unique populations with 268 patients (five to 72 per study) met inclusion criteria. Of the 14 cohorts, 13 were studied with an observational design, 10 were studied prospectively, and four had parallel control groups. Mean age ranged form 41 to 64 yr, mean time on dialysis was 2 to 11 yr, 0 to 28% of patients had diabetes, > 90% had arteriovenous fistulae, and > 50% were dialyzed at home. Most data were described at < or = 12 mo of follow-up. Outcomes included quality of life, cardiovascular disease, erythropoiesis, nutritional status, hospitalizations, and vascular access failures. Reporting was too heterogeneous to allow pooling of data. Ten of 11 studies suggested improvements in blood pressure; findings for other outcomes varied. Discontinuation of DHD occurred in 0 to 57% in-center and 0 to 15% home patients. Studies of DHD are limited by small sample size, nonideal control groups, selection and dropout biases, and paucity of data on potential risks. Randomized trials with adequate statistical power are required to establish the efficacy and the safety of DHD.
多项研究报告称每日血液透析(DHD)可改善预后,但该证据的力度尚未得到评估。对已发表的关于DHD的证据进行了综合分析,并对其质量进行了评级,以指导一项随机试验的必要性和样本量计算。使用经过验证的检索策略在MEDLINE和EMBASE中识别引文。对手工检索未被索引的透析期刊以及相关文章的参考文献。两位作者对所有引文进行了审查。纳入了那些报告了5名或更多接受DHD(1.5至3小时,每周5至7天)超过或等于3个月的成年人的原始数据的文章。25篇报告了14个独特人群共268例患者(每项研究5至72例)的文章符合纳入标准。在这14个队列中,13个采用观察性设计进行研究,10个进行前瞻性研究,4个有平行对照组。平均年龄在41至64岁之间,平均透析时间为2至11年,0至28%的患者患有糖尿病,超过90%有动静脉内瘘,超过50%在家中接受透析。大多数数据是在随访≤12个月时描述的。结局包括生活质量、心血管疾病、红细胞生成、营养状况、住院次数和血管通路失败情况。报告内容差异太大,无法合并数据。11项研究中有10项表明血压有所改善;其他结局的研究结果各不相同。中心内DHD中断率为0至57%,家庭患者为0至15%。DHD的研究受到样本量小、对照组不理想、选择和失访偏倚以及潜在风险数据匮乏的限制。需要进行具有足够统计效力的随机试验来确定DHD的疗效和安全性。