Article

Cardiovascular determinants of prognosis in normotensive hemodialysis patients

BMC Nephrology (Impact Factor: 1.52). 09/2012; 13(1):115. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-115
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
Normotension has been hold to be the goal of hemodialysis. It remains obscure which cardiovascular parameter determines the prognosis in these normotensive hemodialysis patients.

Methods
We prospectively enrolled 145 hemodialysis patients, who had attained normotension without anti-hypertensive medications, and followed them for 72.6 ± 28.5 months. Important cardiovascular parameters were obtained at enrollment. Predictors for all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities were identified with the Cox model.

Results
There were 45 (18 cardiovascular/27 non-cardiovascular) deaths occurred during follow-up. Age, diabetes, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) were significant predictors for all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. After adjustment for age and diabetes, only LVEF was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. LVEF was significantly associated with cardiovascular mortality. LVEF remained as a significant independent predictor of cardiovascular death after adjusting for age, diabetes, LVMI, CIMT, or PWV, respectively.

Conclusion
LVEF is the independent predictor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities in the normotensive hemodialysis patients.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: wen-chung yu, Aug 11, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
118 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to further understand interrelationships between insulin resistance in PCOS and elevated diastolic blood pressure. A prospective case control study. Fifty normal women and 43 PCOS patients, 16 of them with insulin resistance. Academic Institution. Clinical, anthropometric and ultrasonographic features of PCOS were assessed, as were blood levels for luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, androstenedione, DHEAS, and basal insulin. A lipid profile and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were also performed. To demonstrate the effect of insulin resistance on blood pressure in patients with PCOS. Patients with PCOS and those with PCOS plus insulin resistance (IR) had significantly elevated levels of plasma androgen but only those with IR showed greater body mass index and waist: hip ratios than PCOS or control. PCOS plus IR differed significantly in their response to OGTT when compared to PCOS or control. Alterations in lipid profile were shown to be atherogenic. Patients with PCOS plus IR demonstrated a significant elevation of diastolic blood pressure when compared to PCOS alone or controls. We hypothesize that hyperlipidemia and IR may be involved in the pathophysiologic features of the elevated diastolic blood pressure in PCOS patients.
    Archives of Gynecology 07/2013; 289(1). DOI:10.1007/s00404-013-2953-2 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increased left ventricular mass (LVM), low ventricular ejection fraction (EF), and high pulse-wave velocity (PWV) relate to overall and cardiovascular mortality in patients with ESRD. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of online hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus low-flux hemodialysis (HD) on LVM, EF, and PWV. Echocardiography was used to assess LVM and EF in 342 patients in the CONvective TRAnsport STudy followed for up to 4 years. PWV was measured in 189 patients for up to 3 years. Effect of HDF versus HD on LVM, EF, and PWV was evaluated using linear mixed models. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and 61% were male. At baseline, median LVM was 227 g (interquartile range [IQR], 183-279 g), and median EF was 65% (IQR, 55%-72%). Median PWV was 9.8 m/s (IQR, 7.5-12.0 m/s). There was no significant difference between the HDF and HD treatment groups in rate of change in LVM (HDF: change, -0.9 g/yr [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -8.9 to 7.7 g]; HD: change, 12.5 g/yr [95% CI, -3.0 to 27.5 g]; P for difference=0.13), EF (HDF: change, -0.3%/yr [95% CI, -2.3% to 1.8%]; HD: change, -3.4%/yr [95% CI, -5.9% to -0.9%]; P=0.17), or PWV (HDF: change, -0.0 m/s per year [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.4 m/s); HD: change, 0.0 m/s per year [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2 m/s]; P=0.89). No differences in rate of change between treatment groups were observed for subgroups of age, sex, residual kidney function, dialysis vintage, history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or convection volume. Treatment with online HDF did not affect changes in LVM, EF, or PWV over time compared with HD.
    Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 01/2014; 9(3). DOI:10.2215/CJN.07140713 · 5.25 Impact Factor