INTRODUCTION: Intradialytic hypotension remains the most common complication for outpatient hemodialysis, and relative blood volume monitoring was designed to reduce hypotension. Reports of the usefulness of this technology, however, have been variable. METHODS: We audited the usefulness of relative blood volume monitoring recorded throughout the mid-week dialysis in 72 stable adult outpatients who had multifrequency bioimpedance measurements. RESULTS: The blood volume measurement (BVM) at the end of the session was 91.6 ± 0.6% and was not different from the nadir BVM recorded (90.7 ± 0.5). The BVM was strongly correlated with change in hematocrit (r = -0.56, p < 0.001) and albumin (r = -0.69, p < 0.001), but had no relationship with pre-, intra- or postdialysis blood pressure recordings. The BVM was not associated with ultrafiltration volume, but did correlate with a postdialysis change in extracellular fluid volume (r = -0.39, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this audit, although the BVM at the end of the dialysis session was correlated with changes in hematocrit, serum albumin and extracellular fluid volume, the change in the relative BVM did not mirror changes in intradialytic blood pressure.
INTRODUCTION: Intradialytic hypotension remains the most common complication for outpatient hemodialysis, and relative blood volume monitoring was designed to reduce hypotension. Reports of the usefulness of this technology, however, have been variable. METHODS: We audited the usefulness of relative blood volume monitoring recorded throughout the mid-week dialysis in 72 stable adult outpatients who had multifrequency bioimpedance measurements. RESULTS: The blood volume measurement (BVM) at the end of the session was 91.6 ± 0.6% and was not different from the nadir BVM recorded (90.7 ± 0.5). The BVM was strongly correlated with change in hematocrit (r = -0.56, p < 0.001) and albumin (r = -0.69, p < 0.001), but had no relationship with pre-, intra- or postdialysis blood pressure recordings. The BVM was not associated with ultrafiltration volume, but did correlate with a postdialysis change in extracellular fluid volume (r = -0.39, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this audit, although the BVM at the end of the dialysis session was correlated with changes in hematocrit, serum albumin and extracellular fluid volume, the change in the relative BVM did not mirror changes in intradialytic blood pressure.
Authors: Bergur V Stefánsson; Steven M Brunelli; Claudia Cabrera; David Rosenbaum; Emmanuel Anum; Karthik Ramakrishnan; Donna E Jensen; Nils-Olov Stålhammar Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kelvin C W Leung; Robert R Quinn; Pietro Ravani; Henry Duff; Jennifer M MacRae Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Gerke Veenstra; Andrius Pranskunas; Inga Skarupskiene; Vidas Pilvinis; Marc H Hemmelder; Can Ince; E Christiaan Boerma Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 2.388