Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


Published ahead of print on June 1, 2005
J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 2162-2169, 2005
© 2005 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004121053

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2004121053v1
16/7/2162    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reddan, D. N.
Right arrow Articles by Owen, W. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reddan, D. N.
Right arrow Articles by Owen, W. F., Jr

Epidemiology and Outcomes

Intradialytic Blood Volume Monitoring in Ambulatory Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Trial

Donal N. Reddan*,{dagger},{ddagger}, Lynda Anne Szczech*,{ddagger}, Vic Hasselblad*, Edmund G. Lowrie§, Robert M. Lindsay||, Jonathan Himmelfarb, Robert D. Toto#, John Stivelman**, James F. Winchester{dagger}{dagger},{ddagger}{ddagger}, Linda A. Zillman*, Robert M. Califf*,{ddagger} and William F. Owen, Jr{ddagger},§§

* Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; {dagger} University College Galway, Galway, Ireland; {ddagger} Duke University Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Durham, North Carolina; § Hema Metrics Inc., Kaysville, Utah; || London Health Sciences Center and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine; # University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas; ** Northwest Kidney Centers, Seattle, Washington; {dagger}{dagger} Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York; {ddagger}{ddagger} RenalTech International, New York, New York; and; §§ University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee

Address correspondence to: Dr. Lynda Szczech, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3646, Durham, NC 27710. Phone: 919-668-8008; Fax: 919-668-7128; E-mail: szcze001{at}mc.duke.edu

Received for publication December 7, 2004. Accepted for publication April 25, 2005.

Complications related to inadequate volume management are common during hemodialysis. This trial tested the hypothesis that availability of an intradialytic blood volume monitoring (IBVM) device improves fluid removal, reducing morbidity. A six-center, randomized trial with 6 mo of intervention comparing IBVM using Crit-Line versus conventional clinical monitoring was conducted. The average rate of non–access-related hospitalizations was compared across treatment groups using Poisson regression. Mortality analysis used the Kaplan Meier method. A total of 227 patients were randomized to Crit-Line, and 216 were randomized to conventional monitoring. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. During the study, no differences in weight, BP, or number of dialysis-related complications were observed. There were 120 and 81 non–access-related hospitalizations in the Crit-Line and conventional monitoring groups. The adjusted risk ratio for non–access-related and access-related hospitalization was 1.61 (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.25; P = 0.01) and 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.28; P = 0.04) for the Crit-Line monitoring group. Mortality was 8.7% in the Crit-Line monitoring group and 3.3% in the conventional group (P = 0.021). Standardized mortality ratios comparing the Crit-Line and conventional monitoring groups to the prevalent hemodialysis population were 0.77 (NS) and 0.26 (P < 0.001). Hospitalization rates were 1.51 and 1.03 events/yr in the Crit-Line and standard monitoring groups, compared with 2.01 for the prevalent hemodialysis population. IBVM was associated with higher nonvascular and vascular access-related hospitalizations and mortality compared with conventional monitoring. The atypically low hospitalization and mortality rates for the conventional monitoring group suggest that these findings should be generalized to the US hemodialysis population with caution.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CJASNHome page
A. K. Singh, K. Kelley, and R. Agarwal
Interpreting Results of Clinical Trials: A Conceptual Framework
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., September 1, 2008; 3(5): 1246 - 1252.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
B. F. Palmer and W. L. Henrich
Recent Advances in the Prevention and Management of Intradialytic Hypotension
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 8 - 11.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CJASNHome page
H. P. Patel, S. L. Goldstein, J. D. Mahan, B. Smith, C. B. Fried, H. Currier, and J. T. Flynn
A Standard, Noninvasive Monitoring of Hematocrit Algorithm Improves Blood Pressure Control in Pediatric Hemodialysis Patients
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2007; 2(2): 252 - 257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
K. Jindal, C. T. Chan, C. Deziel, D. Hirsch, S. D. Soroka, M. Tonelli, and B. F. Culleton
CHAPTER 2: Management of Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2006; 17(3_suppl_1): S8 - S10.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP