4.6 Article

Association of Hemoglobin Variability and Mortality among Contemporary Incident Hemodialysis Patients

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02390508

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Heart Association Fellow-to-Faculty Transition [0775021N]
  2. Hoffman-LaRoche Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Evidence exists that variability in hemoglobin may be an independent risk factor for mortality among hemodialysis patients. These observations were based on a 1996 cohort, a time when anemia management differed greatly from present. Design, settings, participants and measurements: A retrospective cohort study of patients incident to Fresenius Medical Care units between 2004 and 2005 (n = 6644). Hemoglobin variability (Hgb-Var) was defined for each subject as the residual SD of a linear regression model of time on hemoglobin. Results: The mean (SD) of Hgb-Var was 1.13 (0.55) g/dl. In the primary analysis, each g/dl increase of Hgb-Var was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for all-cause mortality of 1.11 (0.92 to 1.33). No significant interaction with Hgb-Var and mortality was found on the basis of age (P = 0.22), arterial disease (P = 0.45), Hgb slope (P = 0.68), or mean Hgb (P = 0.78). When Hgb-Var was defined by a regression model that included a quadratic term for time (enabling descriptions of curvilinear hemoglobin trajectories), model fit was greatly improved (P for difference <0.001). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for all-cause mortality was 1.17 (0.93 to 1.49). Conclusions: Hgb-Var was not found to be associated with all-cause mortality when examined in a contemporary incident hemodialysis population. More research is needed to determine whether differences in these findings compared with prior analyses relate to temporal trends in anemia management or from differences in the relationship between Hgb-Var and outcomes among incident versus prevalent hemodialysis patients.

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

4.6
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