4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Hemoglobin Variability in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease: Examining the Association with Mortality

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04920908

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives: Anemia and hemoglobin (Hb) variability are associated with mortality in hemodialysis patients who are on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA). Our aim was to describe the degree of Hb variability present in nondialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those who were not receiving ESA, and to investigate the association between Hb variability and mortality. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Hb variability was determined using 6 mo of baseline data between January 1, 2003, and October 31, 2005. A variety of definitions for Hb variability were examined to ensure consistency and robustness. Results: A total of 6165 patients from 22 centers in seven countries were followed for a mean of 34.0 +/- 15.8 mo; 49% were prescribed an ESA. There was increased Hb variability with ESA use; the residual SD of Hb was 4.9 +/- 4.4 g/L in patients who were not receiving an ESA, compared with 6.8 +/- 4.8 g/L. Hb variability was associated with a small but significantly increased risk for death per g/L residual SD, irrespective of ESA use. Multivariate linear regression model explained only 11% of the total variance of Hb variability. Conclusions: Hb variability is increased in patients who have CKD and are receiving ESA and is associated with an increased risk for death (even in those who are not receiving ESAs). This analysis cannot determine whether Hb variability causally affects mortality. Thus, the concept of targeting Hb variability with specific agents needs to be examined within the context of factors that affect both Hb variability and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 1176-1182, 2009. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04920908

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available