Suppr超能文献

重新考虑相对血容量监测在血液透析中液体管理作用的时机。

Time to Reconsider the Role of Relative Blood Volume Monitoring for Fluid Management in Hemodialysis.

机构信息

From the Department of Renal Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.

NIHR Devices for Dignity Healthcare Technology Co-Operative, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

出版信息

ASAIO J. 2018 Nov/Dec;64(6):812-818. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000795.

Abstract

Relative blood volume (RBV) monitoring during hemodialysis has been used to help guide fluid management for decades, although with little supporting evidence. The technique relies on the assumption that variation in RBV during fluid removal reflects the capacity for vascular refilling and that efficient refilling is related to fluid overload. This study investigated the relationship between RBV variation and bioimpedance-based fluid overload in 47 patients on stable hemodialysis. Mean treatment ultrafiltration volume (UFV) was 1.7 L and RBV reduction was 3.2%/hour. Relative blood volume slopes were grouped based on trajectory: flatline (no decrease), linear decrease, or linear decrease followed by flatline. Fluid overload was similar (p > 0.05) across groups pre-dialysis (1.0, 2.2, and 1.6 L, respectively) and post-dialysis (-0.8, -0.1, and -0.1 L), whereas UFV was higher in patients with a linear decrease (1.8, 2.5, and 1.6 L; p = 0.02). Specific ultrafiltration rate, but not fluid overload, was associated with RBV change over dialysis. At least half the patients in each group finished dialysis fluid depleted based on bioimpedance, suggesting that the link between refilling and fluid overload is not as straightforward as previously assumed. These results question the assumptions that the absence of an appreciable decrease in RBV indicates fluid overload, and a rapid fall suggests fluid depletion.

摘要

相对血容量 (RBV) 监测在血液透析中已被用于指导数十年的液体管理,但缺乏有力证据支持。该技术依赖于这样一种假设,即在液体去除过程中 RBV 的变化反映了血管再填充的能力,而有效的再填充与液体超负荷有关。本研究调查了 47 名稳定血液透析患者的 RBV 变化与基于生物阻抗的液体超负荷之间的关系。平均治疗超滤量 (UFV) 为 1.7L,RBV 减少率为 3.2%/小时。根据轨迹将 RBV 斜率分为以下几组:无下降(无下降)、线性下降或线性下降后无下降。各组患者透析前(分别为 1.0、2.2 和 1.6L)和透析后(分别为-0.8、-0.1 和-0.1L)的液体超负荷相似(p>0.05),而线性下降患者的 UFV 更高(1.8、2.5 和 1.6L;p=0.02)。与 RBV 变化相关的是特定超滤率,而不是液体超负荷。每组至少有一半的患者根据生物阻抗完成透析时已经脱水,这表明再填充与液体超负荷之间的联系并不像之前假设的那么简单。这些结果质疑了没有明显的 RBV 减少表明液体超负荷,而快速下降则表明液体不足的假设。

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