Johanna Kuipers1, Loes M Verboom2, Karin J R Ipema2, Wolter Paans3, Wim P Krijnen3, Carlo A J M Gaillard4, Ralf Westerhuis5, Casper F M Franssen2. 1. Dialysis Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, h.kuipers@dcg.nl. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Hanze University Groningen, University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University of Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Dialysis Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is considered to be a frequent complication of hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with symptom burden, increased incidence of access failure, cardiovascular events, and higher mortality. This systematic literature review aims to analyse studies that investigated the prevalence of IDH. A complicating factor herein is that many different definitions of IDH are used in literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search from databases, Medline, Cinahl, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library to identify studies reporting on the actual prevalence of IDH was conducted. Studies were categorized by the type of definition used for the prevalence of IDH. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of IDH was performed. RESULTS: In a meta-analysis comprising 4 studies including 1,694 patients and 4 studies including 13,189 patients, the prevalence of HD sessions complicated by IDH was 10.1 and 11.6% for the European Best Practice Guideline (EBPG) definition and the Nadir <90 definition, respectively. The proportion of patients with frequent IDH could not reliably be established because of the wide range in cutoff values that were used to identify patients with frequent IDH. There was a large variety in the prevalence of symptoms and interventions. Major risk factors associated with IDH across studies were diabetes, a higher interdialytic weight gain, female gender, and lower body weight. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that the prevalence of IDH is lower than 12% for both the EBPG and the Nadir <90 definition which is much lower than stated in most reviews.
BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is considered to be a frequent complication of hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with symptom burden, increased incidence of access failure, cardiovascular events, and higher mortality. This systematic literature review aims to analyse studies that investigated the prevalence of IDH. A complicating factor herein is that many different definitions of IDH are used in literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search from databases, Medline, Cinahl, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library to identify studies reporting on the actual prevalence of IDH was conducted. Studies were categorized by the type of definition used for the prevalence of IDH. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of IDH was performed. RESULTS: In a meta-analysis comprising 4 studies including 1,694 patients and 4 studies including 13,189 patients, the prevalence of HD sessions complicated by IDH was 10.1 and 11.6% for the European Best Practice Guideline (EBPG) definition and the Nadir <90 definition, respectively. The proportion of patients with frequent IDH could not reliably be established because of the wide range in cutoff values that were used to identify patients with frequent IDH. There was a large variety in the prevalence of symptoms and interventions. Major risk factors associated with IDH across studies were diabetes, a higher interdialytic weight gain, female gender, and lower body weight. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that the prevalence of IDH is lower than 12% for both the EBPG and the Nadir <90 definition which is much lower than stated in most reviews.
Authors: I Akhmouch; A Bahadi; Y Zajjari; A Bouzerda; M Asserraji; A Alayoud; D Montasser; O Moujoud; T Aattif; M Kadiri; N Zemraoui; D Elkabbaj; M Hassani; M El Allam; M Benyahia; Z Oualim Journal: Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl Date: 2010-07
Authors: Casper F M Franssen; Judith J Dasselaar; Paulina Sytsma; Johannes G M Burgerhof; Paul E de Jong; Roel M Huisman Journal: Hemodial Int Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Ulrich Steinwandel; Nick Gibson; Mandy Towell-Barnard; Richard Parsons; James Jr Rippey; Johan Rosman Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Luke A Baker; Daniel S March; Thomas J Wilkinson; Roseanne E Billany; Nicolette C Bishop; Ellen M Castle; Joseph Chilcot; Mark D Davies; Matthew P M Graham-Brown; Sharlene A Greenwood; Naushad A Junglee; Archontissa M Kanavaki; Courtney J Lightfoot; Jamie H Macdonald; Gabriella M K Rossetti; Alice C Smith; James O Burton Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Francesco Peyronel; Elisabetta Parenti; Paride Fenaroli; Giuseppe Daniele Benigno; Giovanni Maria Rossi; Umberto Maggiore; Enrico Fiaccadori Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sheetal Chaudhuri; Hao Han; Caitlin Monaghan; John Larkin; Peter Waguespack; Brian Shulman; Zuwen Kuang; Srikanth Bellamkonda; Jane Brzozowski; Jeffrey Hymes; Mike Black; Peter Kotanko; Jeroen P Kooman; Franklin W Maddux; Len Usvyat Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.388