Blood pressure variability (BPV) refers to the fluctuations of blood pressure in a certain period of time. In recent years, BPV is becoming a predictive marker for cardiovascular events. Given the hemodynamic and internal environmental change brought by hemodialysis as well as the complex complications, hemodialysis patients always have complex BPV. Nowadays there is no consensus on an optimal standard to evaluate BPV in hemodialysis population. Metrics usually used are as follows: blood pressure change during a certain period of time, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, variation independent of mean, average real variability, weighted mean of daytime and night-time standard deviation, residual derived from generalized linear models, and residual standard deviation. Impact factors of BPV in hemodialysis patients include age, ultrafitration volume, hemodialysis frequency and time length, peripheral vascular disease, serum calcium, antihypertensive drugs and so on. Recent studies showed significant associations between both long-term and short-term BPV with prognosis of hemodialysis patients. This review focuses on the evaluation methods, the influencing factors and the impact on prognosis of BPV.
Objective To provide evidence for clinical practice by assessing the effectiveness and safety of Ligustrazine for primary nephrotic syndrome. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966.1-2002.12), EMBASE (1975-2002.12), CBM (1979.1-2002.12), Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine/Cochrane Centre Database (CEBM/CCD, Issue 4, 2002) , Cochrane Library, and SCI (1985-2002.12) and handsearched 15 kinds of journals (including Journal of Nephrology et al) (1980-2003.2) for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Jadad score was used to assess the quality of RCTs. The outcomes of short term and long term effectiveness, and adverse effect of the treatment were analyzed by RevMan 4.1. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 675 patients met inclusion criteria. Jadad scores of each trial was 1 point. Meta-analysis of 4 studies showed that Ligustrazine had significant better short term effect [OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76 to 10.19], lowered 24 h urine protein (OR -0.36, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.02), improved renal function [ creatinine level in children group: (OR -3.34, 95% CI -5.25 to -1.43), creatinine level in adult group: (OR -48.29, 95% CI -68.24 to -28.35)], and increased serum albumin level (OR 3.61, 95% CI 2.61 to 4.61). Whether Ligustrazine had long term side effect was not confirmed. No adequate evidence showed that Ligustrazine could reduce the relapse rate of primary nephrotic syndrome. Conclusions Meta-analysis of low quality RCTs suggest that Ligustrazine does work in primary nephritic syndrome in short term observation. No adequate evidence shows that Ligustrazine has severe side effect or can reduce the relapse rate of primary nephrotic syndrome. We can’t draw a conclusion that Ligustrazine is safe in primary nephrotic syndrome treatment.A rigorously designed, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial are required.
Objective To investigate the awareness and clinical needs of wearable artificial kidney among maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, and to analyze the related influencing factors. Methods MHD patients were recruited from 2 tertiary hospitals in Sichuan province between April and June 2021. The convenient sampling method was used to select patients. The factors influencing the awareness and demand of MHD patients for wearable artificial kidney were analyzed. Results A total of 119 MHD patients were included. The awareness of wearable artificial kidney among the patients was mainly “never heard” (61 cases) and “heard” (58 cases). Most MHD patients (60 cases) were willing to use and participate in clinical trials in the future. The results of logistic regression indicated that the cost on household economy and treatment effect on life quality were the influencing factors for MHD patients’ awareness of wearable artificial kidney (P＜0.05). The average duration of single dialysis and the impact of treatment on working or studying were the influencing factors for MHD patients’ needs of wearable artificial kidney (P＜0.05). Conclusions The awareness of wearable artificial kidney is low among MHD patients. However, most MHD patients showed great interest in the wearable artificial kidney after preliminary understanding, suggesting that the future clinical application of wearable artificial kidney has great demand.
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of polyethersulfone highflux dialyzer for uremic patients. Methods Forty eligible uremic patients were randomized into two groups, i.e. polyethersulfone (PES) group and polysulfone(PSF) group, according to a random number table. The PES group received hemodialysis for 4 hours with polyethersulfone highflux dialyzer (Chengdu OCI Medical Device Co., Ltd), and the PSF group with polysulfone highflux dialyzers (Fresenius Polysulfones, Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany). Changes in serum creatinine, urea, β2-microglobulin, hemoglobin and albumin levels were determined for efficacy and safety evaluation. Results All the 40 patients completed the trial. The serum creatinine, urea, β2-microglobulin levels of all the patients in the two groups decreased (gt;30%) after the hemodialysis with different highflux dialyzers, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Changes in solute clearance index (KT/V) value, hemoglobin and albumin levels were also comparable between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Conclusions The efficacy and safety of the PES hollow fiber membrane hemodialyzer is equivalent to that of the PSF hemodialyzer in hemodialysis for uremic patients.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Rhubarb and adjunvent drugs for chronic renal failure. Methods Electronic database searching including Medline, Cochrane Library and CBM from 1980 to Dec., 2000 was performed. Handsearching was applied to 15 kinds of nephrological and traditional Chinese medicine journals such as Chinese Journal of Nephology. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials concerning Rhubarb treatment for CRF were selected. The selected studies were assessed for their methodological quality and the data were extracted to perform the Meta-analysis. Results Eighteen randomised and quasi-randomised trials including 1 322 patients met the inclusion criteria, but their methodological quality was low. Compared to non-specific treatment, Rhubarb showed significant positive effects on relieving symptoms, lowering serum creatinine, improving HGB and adjusting disturbance of lipid metabolism. The effect of Rhubarb on reducing the number of death [OR 0.15, 95%CI (0.06 to 0.36), P=0.000] and the number of progressing into end-stage renal disease [OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.09 to1.64), P=0.19] was not confirmed because of the small sample size. Conclusions Rhubarb may have the same effect on CRF in the short-term observation. But its long-term effect of delaying the progression of CRF is still unclear. Well designed, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials with long-term follow up and clinical related outcomes are warranted.
Objective To assess the cost-utility study of renal transplantation compared with nemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods A prospective study of end-stage renal disease patients was followed up for 3 months after renal replacement therapy. The study population included 196 patients (renal transplant [RT] n=63, hemodialysis [HD] n=82 and continious ambulatory peritoneal dialysis [CAPD] n=51) from 6 hospitals of Sichuan province. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the WHOQOL-BRIEF questionnaire. Utility scores were obtained so as to conduct CUA (cost-utility analysis). Costs were collected from financial department and by patient interview. Results The utility values were 0.539 9± 0.013 for RT, 0.450 8± 0.014 for HD, 0.512 2±0.099 for CAPD, respectively. The mean direct cost of the first three months of renal transplant was significantly higher than dialysis (RT and CAPD). Over 3 months, the average cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for patients after CAPD was lower than HD and RT. Compared to HD, incremental cost analysis showed that CAPD was more ecnomical than RT. Sensitive analysis showed that CAPD was more effective than RT when ΔQALY varied in the limit of 95% confidence interval. However, the cost-utility of RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD was varied with ΔQALY level. Conclusions Cost-utility analysis showed that CAPD was a more favorable cost-utility ratio when compared to RT at early stage RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD, but which cost-utility ratio is better, we can not draw a certain conclusion.