4.5 Article

Very low doses of direct intravenous iron in each session as maintenance therapy in hemodialysis patients

Journal

RENAL FAILURE
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 1076-1081

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2016.1184937

Keywords

Anemia; erythropoietic activity; hemodialysis; intravenous iron; reticulocyte count

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is widely used in hemodialysis (HD) patients to treat their periodic losses. However, the ideal dose and frequency is unknown. The goal of the study is to see if a 20mg dose of iron IV at the end of each session of HD as iron maintenance is better than the iron prior therapy. We analyze the erythropoiesis activity (EA) and functional iron (FI) after four weeks of treatment.Methods: In 36 patients, we measure reticulocyte count and content of hemoglobin reticulocyte (CHr) as EA and FI markers, respectively, before and after the treatment. Before the study, 23 patients received another different therapy with IV iron as maintenance therapy.Results: Reticulocyte count: 49.723.8x10(3) before and 47.2 +/- 17.2x10(3) after the treatment (p=0.51). The CHr: 34.8 +/- 3.7pg and 34.4 +/- 3.5pg, respectively, (p=0.35), showing an excellent correlation with the other FI markers (serum iron r=0.6; p=0.001; saturation transferrin r=0.49; p=0.004); that is not shown with the serum ferritin (r=0.23; p=0.192) or the hepcidin levels (r=0.22; p=0.251). There was not a correlation between the C-Reactive Protein, reticulocyte count, and CHr. The 13 patients who did not receive the iron prior to the study showed high FI levels, but not an increased of the serum ferritin or the serum hepcidin levels.Conclusions: The administration of a small quantity of iron at the end of every HD session keeps the EA and the FI levels and allows reducing the iron overload administered and/or decreasing the iron stores markers in some patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available