2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111	HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP
advanced	CURRENT ISSUE	ARCHIVES	JASN Express	ONLINE SUBMISSION

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Knoll, G. A. Articles by O’Rourke, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Knoll, G. A. Articles by O’Rourke, K.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Albumin versus Saline for the Treatment of Intradialytic Hypotension

Greg A. Knoll^*, Jenny A. Grabowski, Geoffrey F. Dervin and Keith O’Rourke^,

*Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and Worcester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, England

Correspondence to Dr. G. Knoll, Division of Nephrology, The Ottawa Hospital, Riverside Campus, Room 5-17, 1967 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 7W9. Phone: 613-738-8400 ext. 82536; Fax: 613-738-8337; E-mail: gknoll{at}ottawahospital.on.ca

ABSTRACT. Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication of hemodialysis. Symptomatic IDH requires the administration of fluid and often results in the early termination of dialysis, both of which may prevent adequate fluid removal. The optimal fluid for the treatment of IDH remains unknown. A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was performed in 72 chronic hemodialysis patients to determine whether 5% albumin was more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved, which was defined as the actual ultrafiltration volume divided by target ultrafiltration volume. Secondary outcome measures included postdialysis BP, time to restore BP, recurrent IDH, and treatment failure (inability to restore BP with 750 ml of study fluid). The percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved was 0.84 ± 0.17 for 5% albumin compared with 0.80 ± 0.16 for saline (P = 0.14). The postdialysis systolic BP (121 ± 19 mmHg versus 117 ± 19 mmHg; P = 0.32), postdialysis diastolic BP (63 ± 9 mmHg versus 61 ± 9 mmHg; P = 0.33), volume of study fluid used to treat IDH (403 ± 170 ml versus 428 ± 191 ml; P = 0.34), time required to restore the BP (7.9 ± 6.6 min versus 9.9 ± 7.5 min; P = 0.09), total nursing time required to manage the hypotensive episode (15.1 ± 7.2 min versus 15.9 ± 7.3 min; P = 0.47), number of treatment failures (22% versus 24%; P = 1.0), and the frequency of recurrent IDH (36% versus 36%) were not significantly different when 5% albumin was used compared with saline. It is concluded that 5% albumin is no more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH in chronic hemodialysis patients. Normal saline should be used as the initial fluid for the treatment of IDH.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Song, G. H. Park, S. Y. Lee, S. W. Lee, S. W. Lee, and M.-J. Kim Effect of Sodium Balance and the Combination of Ultrafiltration Profile during Sodium Profiling Hemodialysis on the Maintenance of the Quality of Dialysis and Sodium and Fluid Balances J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 237 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Nephrology. Online ISSN: 1533-3450 Print ISSN: 1046-6673