4.1 Review

Effect of Calcium-based Phosphate Binders Versus Sevelamer on Mortality of Patients with Hemodialysis: A Meta-analysis

期刊

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 215-227

出版社

IRANIAN SOC NEPHROLGY
DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.6814

关键词

sevelamer; calcium acetate; cardiovascular system; renal dialysis; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of sevelamer and calcium-based binders on mortality of hemodialysis patients. The results showed that after adjusting confounders, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the results due to the instability of the findings.
Chronic kidney disease is a public health problem. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of sevelamer and calcium-based binders on mortality of hemodialysis patients. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for related articles published before May 14, 2020. We included six studies with 43330 participants, of which 21147 and 22183 received calcium-based phosphate binders and sevelamer, respectively. In the analysis of unadjusted data, sevelamer could lower cardiovascular mortality. When adjusted HRs was pooled, the cardiovascular mortality did not differ significantly in the sevelamer and calcium- based phosphate binders groups. Additionally, the all- cause mortality rate in sevelamer group was different from that in calcium-based phosphate binders group. However, sevelamer could not lower all-cause mortality in terms of the adjusted data. No significant difference was found in calcium and phosphorus between calcium-based phosphate binders and sevalmer. Sensitivity analysis showed that partial results of the study were inconsistent. There was no difference in the effect of sevelamer and calcium-based phosphate binders on the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with hemodialysis, after adjusting confounders. However, given the instability of the results, the results need to be further confirmed by a large sample and high quality RCTs.

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

4.1
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