4.6 Article

Hemoglobin level variability: Associations with mortality

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01610407

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/objectives: Awareness of hemoglobin level variability in dialysis patients is increasing, as is interest in its potential implications. In this retrospective, national study of associations between the degree of hemoglobin level variability in the first 6 mo of 2004 and subsequent mortality rates in the following 6 mo, 159,720 hemodialysis patients receiving epoetin therapy were studied. Design, setting, participants, measurements: Monthly hemoglobin values were categorized as low (L; < 11 g/dl), intermediate (I; 11 to 12.5 g/dl), and high ft >12.5 g/dl). Variability groups were classified on the basis of the lowest and highest hemoglobin categories seen during the 6-mo observation period: low-low (L-L), 1.4%; intermediate-intermediate (I-I), 6.0%; high-high (H-H), 2.3%; low-intermediate (L-I). 18.3%; intermediate-high (I-H), 31.7%. and low-high (L-H), 40.2%. Results: On multivariate analysis, adjusted hazards ratios for subsequent mortality events were as follows: I-I. 1.0 (reference category); I-H, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.11); H-H, 1.06 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.21); L-H, 1.19 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.28); L-I, 1.44 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.56), and L-L, 2.18 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.45). Persistently and transiently low hemoglobin levels and highly variable hemoglobin levels were associated with increased risk of death; transiently and persistently high hemoglobin levels were not associated with increased risk of death. Bayesian modeling indicated that >= 3 mo with hemoglobin levels <11 g/dl may be associated with of increased risk of death. Conclusions: Number of months with hemoglobin values below the target range, rather than hemoglobin variability itself, may be the primary driver of increased risk of death. Further research is needed to distinguish cause from effect and to understand the underlying mechanisms.

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