Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Ozkahya, M., Ok, E., Toz, H., et al. (2006) Long-Term Survival Rates in Haemodialysis Patients Treated with Strict Volume Control. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 21, 3506-3513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl487

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Effect of On-Line Hemodiafiltration on Dry Weight Adjustment in Intradialytic Hypotension-Prone Patients: Comparative Study of Conventional Hemodialysis and On-Line Hemodiafiltration

    AUTHORS: Sun Woo Kang

    KEYWORDS: On-Line Hemodiafiltration; Hemodialysis; Intradialytic Hypotension; Body Composition Monitor; Dry Body Weight

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Nephrology, Vol.4 No.1, March 7, 2014

    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Correct adjustment of dry weight after hemodialysis (HD) with no signs of hypervolemia is important. Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication during HD. IDH occurs in 15% to 30% and possibly in up to 50% of dialysis sessions. IDH augments mortality essentially due to chronic overhydration and the inability to reach the proper dry weight. On-line hemodiafiltration (ol-HDF) has been reported to reduce the frequency of IDH. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of ol-HDF on hemodynamic stability and dry weight adjustment compared with low-flux HD. Methods: IDH-prone HD patients at our center were enrolled. This study was designed as a crossover trial with two phases (A arm: low-flux HD for 8 weeks followed by ol-HDF for 8 weeks vs. B arm: ol-HDF for 8 weeks followed by low-flux HD for 8 weeks) and two treatment arms (ol-HDF vs. low-flux HD), each phase lasting 8 weeks. We measured the proportion of body water using a body composition monitor (BCM). Results: In a comparison of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reductions from the baseline blood pressure between the HD and ol-HDF groups, statistically significant differences were observed only in the SBP of the B arm (SBP: HD vs. HDF, -9.83 ± 6.64 vs. -4.62 ± 1.61 mmHg, p = 0.036; DBP: HD vs. HDF, -3.29 ± 4.05 vs. -1.86 ± 1.49 mmHg, p = 0.261). Neither the mean of the interdialytic body weight gains nor the frequency of IDH was different between the A and B arms (p = 0.817 and p = 0.562, respectively). In terms of dialysis modality, there were no significant differences in the amount of overhydration between the conventional HD and ol-HDF groups during the two study phases, as measured by the BCM (A arm: p = 0.875, B arm: p = 0.655). Conclusion: Our study did not show a better benefit of ol-HDF to reach the dry weight compared with low-flux HD in IDH-prone patients.