4.5 Article

Outcomes of acute renal failure patients requiring intermittent hemodialysis

Journal

RENAL FAILURE
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 991-996

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08860220701641819

Keywords

acute renal failure; intermittent hemodialysis; mortality; serum albumin; serum creatinine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The published studies on the prognosis of patients requiring intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) are scarce and have some conflicts. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed our data on ARF patients who were treated with IHD. A total of 192 (female: 85, 44.3%; male: 107, 55.7%) patients were included in the study. The mean age was 56.3 +/- 17.1 years. In all, 48.9% of the patients were older than 60 years. The mean number of IHD sessions was 7.8 +/- 8.0 per patient; 12.4% was due to prerenal causes, 76.8% was due to intrarenal causes, and 10.8% was due to postrenal causes. The leading indication of the IHD was uremic symptoms (46.8%). With the exclusion of hypertension, 72.4% of the patients had at least one systemic comorbidity. After treatment, 75.5% of the patients recovered, in contrast to 9.4% of patients who were transferred to chronic renal replacement programs and 15.1% who died during IHD period. Pre-dialytic serum creatinine (p = 0.003) and albumin levels (p = 0.016), total lHD session number per patient (p = 0.003), and age (p = 0.034) were the parameters that were related to high mortality in statistical analysis. Mortality was higher if the leading indication of IHD was biochemical disturbances (p = 0.013). Diabetes mellitus did not influence mortality. Consequently, predialytic serum creatinine and albumin levels may be very important predictors of mortality. Patients in high-risk groups (older age, female sex, and low pre-dialytic creatinine and albumin levels) should be considered to be treated with slow continuous renal replacement methods.

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