4.6 Article

Can Rescaling Dose of Dialysis to Body Surface Area in the HEMO Study Explain the Different Responses to Dose in Women versus Men?

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02350310

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH/NIDDK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives: In the Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study, the lower death rate in women but not in men assigned to the higher dose (Kt/V) could have resulted from use of V as the normalizing factor, since women have a lower anthropometric V per unit of surface area (V/SA) than men. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The effect of Kt/V on mortality was re-examined after normalizing for surface area and expressing dose as surface area normalized standard Kt/V (SAn-stdKt/V). Results: Both men and women in the high-dose group received approximately 16% more dialysis (when expressed as SAn-stdKt/V) than the controls. SAn-stdKt/V clustered into three levels: 2.14/wk for conventional dose women, 2.44/wk for conventional dose men or 2.46/wk for high-dose women, and 2.80/wk for high-dose men. VISA was associated with the effect of dose assignment on the risk of death; above 20 L/m(2), the mortality hazard ratio = 1.23 (0.99 to 1.53); below 20 L/m(2), hazard ratio = 0.78 (0.65 to 0.95), P = 0.002. Within gender, V/SA did not modify the effect of dose on mortality. Conclusions: When normalized to body surface area rather than V, the dose of dialysis in women in the HEMO Study was substantially lower than in men. The lowest surface-area-normalized dose was received by women randomized to the conventional dose arm, possibly explaining the sex-specific response to dialysis dose. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that when dialysis dose is expressed as Kt/V, women, due to their lower V/SA ratio, require a higher amount than men. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1628-1636, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02350310

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