4.1 Article

Low-Dose Dopamine in Kidney Transplantation

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 4165-4168

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.08.058

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The use of low-dose dopamine (LDD; 0.5-2.5 mu g/kg/min) in kidney transplant recipients seeks to increase urine output, prevent arterial vasospasm, and reduce the incidence of acute tubular necrosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of LDD in the early postoperative period (12 hours) among kidney transplant recipients. Methods. We studied all kidney transplant recipients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the early postoperative period from January 2004 to December 2008. A total of 105 patients were retrospectively assigned to two groups: group A (n = 57) was treated with LDD and group B (n = 48), not treated with LDD. All patients otherwise received the same therapy. Blood sample analysis and kidney function were recorded at 0, 6, and 12 hours after admission. For each patient, we collected the following data: donor and transplant kidney features, recipient demographics, intraoperative events, hemodynamic and kidney function parameters in the ICU, and outcomes. Patients were followed for 6 months after ICU discharge. Results. Hourly diuresis and kidney function parameters showed no significant difference between the groups. Significant differences between group A and group B were observed in heart rate (92.63 +/- 14.18 vs 82.87 +/- 13.5, respectively), hours of ICU length of stay (29.0 +/- 17.42 vs 20.43 +/- 7.35, respectively), and 6-month mortality rate (8.8% vs 0%, respectively; P < .05). Conclusion. LDD prescription in kidney transplantation neither improved kidney function during the postoperative period nor short-term outcomes, but was associated with an increased heart rate, ICU length of stay and 6-month mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available