浅谈腹膜透析患者的血压管理

腹膜透析患者的高血压患病率达80%以上,难治性高血压导致卒中、心血管事件发病率不断增加,是患者死亡和退出腹膜透析的主要原因。2015年国际腹膜透析协会(ISPD)关于成人腹膜透析患者心血管和代谢指南指出,持续腹膜透析患者目标血压应<140/90 mmHg,并与年龄无关。腹膜透析患者血压控制不佳的影响因素纷繁复杂,但常见原因是容量超负荷和残肾功能减退。腹膜透析患者高血压防治策略包括容量负荷的准确评估与干预、残余肾功能的有效保护、透析处方的及时调整,降压药物的正确选择以及以病人为中心的团队管理等五个方面。     

Posttransplant outcomes of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis patients

The impact of dialysis modality on posttransplant outcomes remains controversial. The authors have compared primary failure, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection episodes as well as patient and allograft survivals among patients undergoing renal transplantation between 2004 and 2009, according to the modality of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD). We studied 306 patients (268 HD and 38 PD) with a mean follow-up of 29 ± 16 months. The PD cohort included a predominance of females (68.4% vs 36.2%; P = .001), lower age at transplantation (38 ± 14 vs 46 ± 12 years; P = .004), shorter time on dialysis (33 ± 49 vs 59 ± 157 months; P = .043), and higher rate of living donor grafts (PD 31.6% vs HD 13.1%; P = .003). Donor age (PD 43 ± 13 vs HD 45 ± 14 years; P = .30), human leukocyte antigen mismatch (P = .17), panel reactive antibody values (HD 11 ± 22 vs PD 13 ± 26; P = .55), and hyperimunized patients (HD 3.73%; PD 7.89%; P = .23) were not different. Primary graft failure (3.4% vs 0%; P = .025) and DGF (37.1% vs 13.1%; P = .037) were more frequent among HD patients, but incidences of acute rejection episodes were similar (HD 10.5% vs PD 5.3%; P = 0.19). Neither recipient survival at 1 (97% in PD and HD) or 3 years (HD 90% vs PD 94%; P = .657) nor allograft survival at 1 year (HD 94% vs PD 95%; P = .80) or 3 years: (HD 70%, vs PD 81%; P = .73) were different. Graft function was similar at 1 (HD 64.2 ± 25 vs PD 56.4 ± 24 mL/min; P = .17) and 3 years (HD 62.3 ± 21 vs PD 46 ± 23 mL/min; P = .16). In our study, HD patients showed an higher incidence of DGF and primary allograft failure, but there was no difference in acute rejection episodes, long-term survivals, or renal function.     

Intracranial pressure measurement in a patient undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Control of changes in the intracranial pressure in patients who have suffered brain injury is essential in preventing further neurological deterioration. In a patient requiring dialysis with intracerebral bleeding, intracranial pressure was measured directly during hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. This provided the opportunity to provide therapeutic maneuvers to control the increases in intracranial pressure occurring during hemodialysis. Dialytic changes in intracranial pressure were best prevented by peritoneal dialysis. When hemodialysis is necessary, therapy with osmotic agents to minimize the osmotic gradient between the CSF and plasma urea was most effective in preventing directly measured changes in the intracranial pressure.     

Thrombophilia in hemodialysis patients: Transfer to peritoneal dialysis is life saving

The majority of vascular access thrombosis episodes in hemodialysis patients are due to anatomic abnormalities. Thrombophilias are inherited, acquired or mixed disorders which also predispose to venous thromboembolism. They include protein C, protein S and antithrombin deficiencies, as well as gene mutations for prothrombin and factor V Leiden. The most important of the mixed cases is hyperhomocysteinemia, which includes both a genetic and an acquired substrate. We report two patients undergoing hemodialysis who suffered from multiple thrombotic events, the first due to factor V Leiden heterozygosity and the second because of hyperhomocysteinemia due to homozygosity for MTHFR C677T mutation. As no site for vascular access was left, transfer to peritoneal dialysis for both patients improved solute clearance and quality of life with no additional thrombotic events noted.     

血液透析患者转腹膜透析原因及预后分析

目的 分析血液透析转腹膜透析的原因并探讨影响其预后的因素.方法 调查2005年2月至2009年10月在本中心由血液透析转腹膜透析的连续性不卧床腹膜透析患者.以COX回归法分析影响患者死亡预后的因素.结果 21例转腹膜透析患者中血管通路条件不佳者16例.糖尿病患者平均存活时间短,低蛋白血症影响患者预后(P=0.001).结论 血液透析转腹膜透析的主要原因是血管通路条件不佳.糖尿病肾病患者预后较非糖尿病患者差.低蛋白血症的患者提示预后不良.     

Timely transfer of peritoneal dialysis patients to hemodialysis improves survival rates

AIMS: The two main renal replacement therapies (RRT)--hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD)--have been considered to be antagonistic in most published studies on the clinical outcomes of dialysis patients. Recently, it has been suggested that the complementary use of both modalities as an integrated care (IC) strategy might improve the survival rate of end-stage renal disease patients. The aim of this study was to estimate the final clinical outcome of PD patients when they transfer to HD because of complications related to PD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from the following patients that started RRT during the last 10 years: 33 PD patients (IC group; age 55 +/- 15 years, mean +/- SD) who transferred to HD, 134 PD patients (PD group, age 64 +/- 11 years) who remained in PD, and 132 HD patients (HD group, age 48 +/- 16 years) who started and continued in HD. The main reasons for the transfer to HD were relapsed peritonitis and loss of ultrafiltration, while various comorbid risk factors were adjusted by Cox hazards regression model (age, presence of diabetes or/and cardiovascular disease, serum hemoglobin and albumin levels, as well as the modality per se). RESULTS: 3- and 5-year survival rates for the IC, PD and HD groups were 97% and 81%, 54% and 28%, and 92% and 83%, respectively. The 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in IC patients than in PD patients (p < 0.00001) but, was not different from that in HD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the IC of dialysis patients undergoing RRT improves the survival of patients on PD if they are transferred to HD upon the appearance of PD related complications.     

Comparative hospitalization of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients in Canada

BACKGROUND: Most comparisons of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) have used mortality as an outcome. Relatively few studies have directly compared the hospitalization rates, an outcome of perhaps equal importance, of patients using these different dialysis modalities. METHODS: Eight hundred twenty-two consecutive patients at 11 Canadian institutions with irreversible renal failure had an extensive assessment of comorbid illness and initial mode of dialysis collected prospectively immediately prior to starting dialysis therapy. The cohort was assembled between March 1993 and November 1994. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Admission data were used to compare hospitalization rates in HD and PD. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of patients at baseline and 50% at three months used PD. Twenty-five percent of HD and 32% of PD patients switched dialysis modality at least once after their first treatment (P = NS). Nine percent of HD patients and 30% of PD patients switched modality after three months (P < 0. 001). Total comorbidity was higher in HD patients at baseline (P < 0. 001) and at three months (P = 0.001). The overall hospitalization rate was 40.2 days per 1000 patient days after baseline and 38.0 days per 1000 patient days after three months. When an adjustment was made for baseline comorbid conditions, patients on PD had a lower rate of hospitalization in intention-to-treat analysis according to the type of dialysis in use at baseline (RR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.87, P < 0.001), but a higher rate according to the type of dialysis in use three months after study entry (RR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34, P < 0.001). In analyses based on the amount of time actually spent on each treatment modality, PD was associated with a higher rate of hospitalization when analyzed according to the type of dialysis in use at baseline (RR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.13, P < 0.001) and according to the type of dialysis in use three months after study entry (RR 1.26, 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.30, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions regarding comparative hospitalization rates are heavily dependent on the analytic starting point and on whether intention-to-treat or treatment-received analyses are used. When early treatment switches are accounted for, HD is associated with a lower rate of hospitalization than PD, but the effect is modest.     

Nutritional status of patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

In a cross-sectional study, the nutritional status of 32 patients on hemodialysis (HD) and 16 patients on peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) was determined. Protein-caloric malnourishment assessed from a score system based on triceps skin-fold, midarm muscle circumference, S-transferrin and relative body weight was recorded in 54% of the patients. No significant differences between the nutritional status of HD and CAPD patients were found. Malnutrition was more frequent among patients in early stage dialysis (i.e., dialysis for less than 12 months) than among other patients (p less than 0.02). Frequent assessment of the nutritional status is mandatory for optimal nourishment.     

维持性血液透析与腹膜透析患者生活质量调查

目的 评估维持性血液透析(MHD)与持续非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)患者生活质量情况,探讨MHD和CAPD患者生活质量的影响因素.方法 选取2016年7月～9月在郑州大学第一附属医院肾脏内科和血液净化中心随访的118例MHD患者和76例CAPD患者的临床和问卷调查资料.采用KDQOL-SFTM 1.3进行问卷分析,评估MHD与CAPD患者的生活质量.结果 MHD患者KDTA评分为(62.4±11.3)分,SF-36评分为(58.3±17.9)分,明显低于一般人群(P＜0.05).在各分维度评分中11个分维度评分略高于美国,6个分维度评分略高于西班牙;与国内广州调查数据相比,各维度评分均有明显改善,且与沈阳和合肥调查数据持平.CAPD患者KDTA评分为(71.4±8.9)分,SF-36评分为(61.6±16.3)分,明显低于一般人群(P＜0.05).在各分维度评分中7个分维度显著高于中国香港,其余均较中国香港偏低;与国内广州调查数据相比各维度评分均有明显改善,且与沈阳和合肥调查数据持平.MHD患者KDTA和SF-36整体评分显著低于CAPD患者(P＜0.05).在KDTA各分维度评分中,CAPD患者均高于MHD患者,且在肾脏疾病对日常生活的影响(EKD)、肾脏疾病导致的生活负担(BKD)、工作情况(WS)、认知功能(CF)、社交质量(QSI)、性功能(SexF)、社会支持(SoS)、患者满意度(PS)方面差异明显(P＜0.05);在SF-36评分中在生理职能(RP)、躯体疼痛(BP)、总体健康(GH)、情感状况(EWB)、情感职能(RE)各维度中,CAPD组患者均高于MHD患者且差异明显(P＜0.05).对于MHD患者,生活质量在性别、文化程度、家庭年收入、医保情况、原发病因、透析龄方面存在差异(P＜ 0.05),且在SGA评分、血白蛋白(ALB)、血红蛋白(HB)、尿素清除指数(Kt/V)、甲状旁腺激素(iPTH)、钙磷乘积(Ca×P)方面均存在相关性(P＜0.05).透析龄、性别(女)、原发病(糖尿病肾病)、iPTH、Kt/V、SGA评分是影响MHD患者生活质量的独立危险因素;对于CAPD患者,职业状况、医保情况、原发病因、透析龄方面存在差异(P＜0.05),且在SGA评分、ALB、HB、Kt/V方面存在相关性(P＜0.05),原发病(糖尿病肾病)、Kt/V、ALB、SGA评分是影响CAPD患者生活质量的独立危险因素.结论 MHD患者和CAPD患者整体生活质量较低,与发达国家和地区存在差距;CAPD和MHD患者生活质量均受不同因素影响,其中原发病(糖尿病肾病)、Kt/V、SGA评分是共同独立影响因素.     

血液透析和腹膜透析患者生存比较

目的 比较血液透析和腹膜透析患者的生存情况,探讨影响透析患者生存的主要危险因素。 方法 研究对象为2005年1月1日至2008年12月31日期间新进入透析且年龄≥18岁患者,随访至2009年3月31日。应用Kaplan-Meier法、log-rank检验及Cox回归模型分析患者的生存资料。 结果 共460例透析患者入选,其中247例起始采用血透治疗,213例起始采用腹透治疗。两组患者的基线资料,包括开始透析年龄、体质量指数（BMI）、估算肾小球滤过率（eGFR）、平均动脉压、进入透析治疗前心脑血管事件、Charlson并发症指数（CCI）等的差异均无统计学意义。中位随访时间为17.9（0.25,51）个月。意向治疗分析结果中,Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示血透总体生存率优于腹透（P ＜ 0.05,log-rank检验）;透析1年内两组生存率差异无统计学意义（P = 0.14）,而透析1年后腹透患者的生存率显著低于血透患者（P ＜ 0.05）。亚组分析结果显示,≥65岁的非糖尿病肾病血透组生存率显著高于腹透组（P ＜ 0.05）。Cox回归分析显示,经混杂因素调整后,两种透析方式本身对透析生存无明显影响（HR,HD：PD = 0.778,95%CI 0.483~1.254,P = 0.303）;而年龄（HR = 1.051,95%CI 1.030~1.073,P ＜ 0.01）、透前有脑血管意外史（HR = 2.032,95%CI 1.125~3.670,P ＜ 0.05）、透前CCI≥5（HR=2.592,95%CI 1.230~5.465,P ＜ 0.05）、前白蛋白（HR = 0.022,95%CI 0.001~0.768,P ＜ 0.05）为透析患者生存率的主要影响因素。 结论 透析龄≤1年的血透和腹透生存率无显著差异;透析龄>1年的血透患者生存率可能逐渐高于腹透患者。老年非糖尿病患者血透生存率可能高于腹透。年龄、透前脑血管意外史、透前CCI≥5为影响透析生存率的主要危险因素。     

Comparison of eosinophilia in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis

Eosinophilia (E) has been noted in hemodialysis (HD) patients, but its etiology is not clear. In an effort to clarify this phenomenon, we prospectively studied patients initiating dialysis in our outpatient HD and peritoneal dialysis programs. Rate of E was greatest for a small group of four continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis patients (75%), less for 63 HD patients (41%), and least for 66 continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients (21%, P less than .05, HD v CAPD). Increasing E rates among the groups paralleled increased frequency of tubing changes. There were no differences in etiology of renal disease, medications, types of dialyzers, types of access, or transfusion frequency that could account for the E. IgE levels did not correlate with E. The data suggest that the dialysis procedure or the tubing changes may be causing the E, but the possibility that uremia, itself, is important in the pathogenesis of dialysis E is also discussed.     

Lipoprotein abnormalities in hemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients

Lipid abnormalities are important variables in the development of vascular atherosclerotic lesions in ESRD patients while Lp(a) represents an independent risk factor. In order to evaluate lipid changes in HD and CAPD patients, serum cholesterol (TC), HDLc, LDLc, TG, apolipoproteins (AI,AII,B,E), Lp(a), and albumin levels were estimated in 109 ESRD dialyzed patients, 46 in HD and 63 in CAPD (mean duration 50 +/- 40 and 25 +/- 19 months, respectively), and 45 volunteers with high serum levels of C and TG, without renal insufficiency. Both HD and PD group revealed statistically significantly higher levels than controls for TC, TG, LDL-C, Apo-B,-E, while HDL-C levels were significantly lower. Except for the lower serum albumin levels in both dialyzed groups after six months lower ApoAI levels and higher ApoB levels were observed in HD and PD patients respectively. Lp(a) levels remained unchanged in HD group, while a statistically significant increase appeared in PD patients that was negative correlated with the decreased serum albumin levels. These results indicate that renal replacement modalities result in a different effect in lipoprotein metabolism that may play an important role in atherosclerotic vascular disease of dialyzed ESRD patients.     

Comparison of sleep quality between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients

AIM: Sleep disorders are common in patients with end-stage renal disease. Although studies have been conducted on the type and frequency of sleep disturbances in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients, there has been no study comparing the sleep quality between these two groups. Therefore, we aimed to compare sleep quality between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. METHODS: A total of 102 patients (52 hemodialysis and 50 peritoneal dialysis) were included in the study. The Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) was used for the assessment of sleep quality. Two groups were compared for seven components of the PSQI questionnaire and global score as well as for clinical and laboratory findings. We also assessed the independent predictors of sleep quality. RESULTS: There were 51 male and 51 female patients (29 male and 23 female in hemodialysis group versus 22 male and 28 female in peritoneal dialysis group). The mean age was 55.5 +/- 14.6 years in the hemodialysis and 51.5 +/- 18.1 years in the peritoneal dialysis group. The median dialysis duration was 36 (77.0) months. The sleep quality was poor in 88.5% of the hemodialysis patients and 78.0% of the peritoneal dialysis patients. However, this difference in sleep quality was not significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was a significant association between the sleep quality and the age, presence of diabetes mellitus, and serum albumin. Among these variables, only age was found to be an independent predictor of sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients had a similar high rate of poor sleep quality. Further studies are necessary to investigate the causes of poor quality of sleep and to investigate methods to improve sleep quality in this population.