4.4 Editorial Material

The interdialytic weight gain: a simple marker of left ventricular hypertrophy in children on chronic haemodialysis

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 859-863

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-015-3086-6

关键词

Chronic haemodialysis; Interdialytic weight gain; Left ventricular hypertrophy; Ultrafiltration rate; Children

资金

  1. Kidney Research UK [RP39/2013] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite multiple advances in haemodialysis (HD) technology over the years, the morbidity and mortality of HD patients remain unacceptably high. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death, and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), seen in two-thirds of children on dialysis, is a significant contributor. The importance of volume control is increasingly recognized by nephrologists and now considered to be as important as urea kinetics, both in the day-to-day management and the long-term outcome of dialysis patients. The results published by Paglialonga et al. (10.1007/s00467-014-3005-2 in this issue of Pediatric Nephrology clearly demonstrate that there is a significant correlation between interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and LVH in oligoanuric children on chronic HD and that children with an IDWG of > 4 % are at high risk of LVH. One common practice to achieve euvolaemia is to prescribe very high ultrafiltration rates. However, both volume overload and aggressive fluid removal can induce circulatory stress and multi-organ injury. In adults, ultrafiltration rates of > 1.24 % body weight per hour, even if well tolerated, are associated with a significant increase in mortality. Nephrologists should be aware of the risk of a high ultrafiltration rate, especially if tolerance is obtained by a positive dialysate-to-plasma sodium gradient. Haemodiafiltration, which allows for higher ultrafiltration rates with greater intradialytic haemodynamic stability, or more frequent and longer dialysis sessions allow for safe and effective fluid removal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据