| Literature DB >> 24490775 |
Manuela Ferrario1, Ulrich Moissl, Francesco Garzotto, Dinna N Cruz, Anna Clementi, Alessandra Brendolan, Ciro Tetta, Emanuele Gatti, Maria G Signorini, Sergio Cerutti, Claudio Ronco.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While fluid overload (FO) and alterations in the autonomic nervous system (ANS) such as hypersympathetic activity, are known risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD), their relationship has not been thoroughly studied.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24490775 PMCID: PMC3916802 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Patient data
| 31 | 38 | | |
| 11 | 8 | 0.2 | |
| 65 (50,75) | 69 (60, 75) | 0.2 | |
| 18/13 | 27/11 | 0.3 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0.9 | |
| 236 (233, 241) | 237 (234, 241) | 0.5 | |
| 0.67 (0.47, 0.84) | 0.81 (0.56, 0.9) | 0.2 | |
| 9.5 (5.9, 10.9) | 10.9 (8.0, 13.6) | 0.1 | |
| 74.2 (61.6, 78.6) | 68.4 (61.0, 74.5) | 0.2 | |
| 26.4 (23.5, 28.8) | 24.3 (21.6, 26.7) | 0.2 | |
| 3/26/2/0 | 6/27/3/2 | 0.6 | |
| 5 | 6 | 0.9 | |
| 21 | 25 | 0.9 | |
| 17 | 12 | 0.8 | |
| 10 | 11 | 0.2 | |
| 31 | 36 | 0.5 | |
| 10 | 14 | 0.8 | |
| 9 | 11 | 0.8 | |
| 14 | 16 | 0.9 |
The values are expressed as median (25°, 75° percentiles) or numbers of patients.
HDF-OL: Hemodiafiltration OnLine; HD:Hemodialysis; HFD: High Flux Dialysis; HF: Hemofiltration.
Significant differences are indicated in bold.
Correlation coefficients
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.25 | ||||||
| -0.09 | -0.11 | -0.17 | -0.16 | |||
| 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.19 | ||||
| -0.21 | -0.22 | -0.22 | -0.22 | |||
| -0.18 | -0.17 | -0.17 | -0.2 | -0.13 | -0.23 | |
| -0.23 | -0.15 | -0.07 | -0.1 | |||
| -0.34 | ||||||
Correlation coefficients between the hydration status parameters and those HRV indices that reached statistical significance for all 69 patients enrolled in the study. Significant values are indicated in bold.
*Spearman p-value < 0.01, #p-value < 0.05, §Pearson p-value < 0.05.
Figure 2HRV indices that significantly correlated with FO/ECW% index during the first 30 minutes of HD treatment. Figures A, B, C and D depict the results of the correlation analysis with the regression lines for all 69 patients for SDANN, VLF, HF% and LZC (3,0.01) indices, and the correlation coefficients were r = –0.39, r = –0.39, r = 0.29 and r = –0.26, respectively. The histograms of HRV parameter distributions are shown on the left of each panel.
Values of HRV indices for the two groups of patients
| | | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | ||
| | 14(10,41) | 14(9,17) | |||||||
| | 310(223,477) | 124(44,300) | 614(375,1123) | 252(141,622) | P = 0.1 | ||||
| | 23.0(7.4,35.8) | 28.8(22.0,53.6) | 12.1(8.3,20.6) | 21.4(9.9,38.7) | P = 0.03 | ||||
| | 37.3(25.0,50.0) | 43.0(28.6,52.3) | P = 0.4 | 34.3(23.9,40.7) | 36.0(30.4,46.1) | 43.0(28.6,52.3) | 33.1(23.7,45.1) | P = 0.7 | |
| | 2.72(1.44,5.17) | 2.81(1.72,5.78) | P = 0.1 | 1.55(0.83,3.11) | 1.53(0.61,2.12) | 2.81(1.72,5.78) | 2.04(0.87,3.41) | P = 0.8 | |
| | 0.88(0.85,0.94) | 0.83(0.76,0.91) | P = 0.07 | 0.87(0.86,0.92) | 0.81(0.77,0.92) | 0.88(0.84,0.95) | 0.84(0.74,0.91) | P = 0.6 | |
| | | | | | | | | ||
| | 17(13,27) | 20(13,35) | P = 0.1 | 15(13,21) | 12(10,16) | 20(13,35) | 13(9,31) | P = 0.3 | |
| | 634(394,2082) | 795(459,2167) | P = 0.2 | 504(372,671) | 246(30,860) | 795(459,2167) | 460(202,1645) | P = 0.6 | |
| | 12.41(9.04,20.57) | 11.41(8.12,19.20) | P = 0.5 | 16.06(9.69,26.27) | 27.03(19.23,31.04) | 11.41(8.12,19.20) | 14.80(3.66,27.97) | P = 0.5 | |
| | 41.61(29.41,54.38) | 45.55(36.21,58.68) | P = 0.07 | 38.34(23.62,43.83) | 36.41(21.47,49.94) | 45.55(36.21,58.68) | 31.72(16.36,49.99) | P = 0.1 | |
| | 2.66(1.74,6.28) | 4.09(2.37,7.51) | P = 0.09 | 1.86(1.59,3.50) | 1.01(0.39,2.02) | 4.09(2.37,7.51) | 2.37(1.03,5.70) | P = 0.1 | |
| | 0.91(0.86,0.95) | 0.91(0.88,0.94) | P = 0.08 | 0.93(0.85,0.96) | 0.88(0.79,0.97) | 0.91(0.88,0.94) | 0.87(0.76,0.92) | P = 0.2 | |
| | | | | | | | | ||
| | 42(30,61)§ | 24(21,27) | |||||||
| | 675(369, 1627) | 415(207,1026) | P = 0.09 | 417(287, 697) | 266(61,580) | 972(411, 1851) | 452(252,1160) | P = 0.5 | |
| | 16.0(7.0,21.6) | 16.9(9.5,29.1) | P = 0.3 | 20.9(13.5, 23.8) | 23.0(19.3,33.9) | 12.7(6.8,18.1) | 14.7(6.9,29.1) | P = 0.1 | |
| | 37.88(23.20,53.31) | 38.52(22.30,54.50) | P = 0.3 | 37.09(23.20,46.30) | 36.99(23.20,44.85) | 38.52(22.30,54.50) | 30.94(21.45,47.65) | P = 0.7 | |
| | 3.07(1.55,5.13) | 3.41(1.77,5.30) | P = 0.09 | 2.04(1.15,3.88) | 1.18(0.56,1.99) | 3.41(1.77,5.30) | 2.57(0.90,4.79) | P = 0.6 | |
| 0.90(0.86,0.93) | 0.86(0.78,0.92) | P = 0.1 | 0.90(0.88,0.91) | 0.91(0.78,0.95) | 0.90(0.86, 0.94) | 0.85(0.78,0.91) | P = 0.3 | ||
Values of SDANN, VLF, HF% and LZC estimated during the first 30 min of the HD session and for the entire HD session. The values are expressed as median (25°, 75° percentiles). Significant values are indicated in bold.
L group: FOpre ≤ 2.5 L; H group: FOpre > 2.5 L; d: diabetic; nd: non diabetic.
Post-hoc comparisons between the four subgroups (Ld vs Lnd, Hd vs Hnd): § P = 0.02 * P = 0.001.
Figure 3Diabetes stratified results for FO/ECW% correlations with HRV indices. Diabetes stratified results for FO/ECW% correlations with SDANN, LF% and LZC (2,0.05) indices estimated during the last 30 min of HD treatment (panel A, B and C respectively). Regression lines are portrayed for diabetic patients (D pts) and non-diabetic patients (non D pts) separately. Statistically significant correlations were only obtained for non-diabetic patients and the correlation coefficients of SDANN, LF% and LZC (2,0.05) indices were r = –0.32, r = –0.43 and r = –0.34, respectively. The histograms of HRV parameter distributions are shown on the left of each panel.
Data and comorbidities of the five patients followed up for 3 months post-study
| M | 6 | 84 | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | |
| F | 6 | 45 | N | Y | N | N | N | N | |
| M | 13 | 73 | N | N | N | N | N | Y | |
| M | 1 | 72 | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
| F | 8 | 47 | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
N = no Y = yes; LVH: left ventricular hypertrophy; PVD: peripheral vascular disease; CHF: congestive heart failure; CAD: coronary artery disease.
HRV values obtained during the follow-up study
| | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1033.6 | 271 | 245.4 | 55.6 | 52.9 | 38.4 | 47.3 | 29 | 57 | |
| 2938 | 1101.5 | 284.3 | 68.4 | 47.1 | 36.3 | 48.5 | 70.3 | 68.7 | |
| 955.3 | 622.9 | 730.5 | 51.3 | 43.9 | 47.9 | 27.5 | 29.8 | 31.6 | |
| 6.7 | 227.4 | 49.5 | 1.9 | 39 | 20.1 | 34.8 | 31.1 | 101.8 | |
| 151.6 | 144 | 82.3 | 28.2 | 39 | 23.8 | 32.7 | 91.4 | 157.9 | |
| 955.3(115.4,1509.7) | 271.0(206.6,742.5) | 245.4(74.1,395.9) | 51.3(21.6,58.8) | 43.9(39.0,48.5) | 36.3(22.9,40.8) | 34.8(31.4,47.6) | 31.1(29.6,75.6) | 68.7(50.6,115.8)* | |
SDANN, LF component and LF% indexes measured during the HD session are shown for each patient at the start (baseline, BL), after 1 month (1 M), when the hydration target was planned to be reached, and after 3 months (3 M). The last row shows the values of median (25°, 75° percentiles).
*Paired Wilcoxon signed test p-value = 0.06 (3 M vs. BL).