Cruz D N, Mahnensmith R L, Brickel H M, Perazella M A
Department of Internal Medicine, Gambro Dialysis Center at Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1999 May;33(5):920-6. doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(99)70427-0.
Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a morbid complication of hemodialysis (HD). Both midodrine, an oral selective alpha1 agonist, and cool dialysate have been reported as useful therapies for this problem. We performed this prospective crossover study to compare the efficacy of these two therapies, alone and in combination, for IDH. The study consisted of a control phase and three treatment phases: midodrine phase (10 mg oral dose pre-HD), cool dialysate phase (35.5 degrees C), and combination therapy phase (midodrine, 10 mg, and dialysate temperature, 35.5 degrees C). Each phase consisted of nine consecutive HD treatments. Eleven patients (six men, five women; mean age, 67.5 years) with known symptomatic IDH were studied. This cohort was followed up in terms of blood pressure measurements (pre-HD blood pressure, lowest intradialytic blood pressure, post-HD blood pressure), weights, laboratory values, and interventions for IDH. The lowest intradialytic blood pressures were significantly better with midodrine and cool dialysate compared with the control phase (systolic blood pressure [SBP], 103.9 +/- 4.1 [mean +/- standard error of the mean] and 102.6 +/- 2.9 v 90.6 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.001), as were the post-HD blood pressures (SBP, 116.9 +/- 4.0 and 118.2 +/- 3.5 v 109.0 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; P < 0.01). In addition, the lowest intradialytic blood pressures were significantly better with the combination phase compared with the control phase (SBP, 103.7 +/- 4.2 v 90.6 +/- 2.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), as were the post-HD blood pressures (SBP, 122.1 +/- 4.6 v 109.0 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; P < 0.01). There was a significant reduction in the number of nursing interventions performed and volume of saline infused for IDH with midodrine and cool dialysate compared with control. There was a trend toward amelioration of hypotensive symptoms with both therapies. Laboratory values, including Kt/V, did not change significantly with either midodrine or cool dialysate. This prospective study shows that both midodrine and cool dialysate are effective therapies for symptomatic IDH. There does not seem to be additional benefit when these two therapies are used in combination.
透析中低血压(IDH)是血液透析(HD)的一种严重并发症。口服选择性α1激动剂米多君和低温透析液均已被报道为治疗该问题的有效方法。我们进行了这项前瞻性交叉研究,以比较这两种疗法单独及联合应用治疗IDH的疗效。该研究包括一个对照阶段和三个治疗阶段:米多君阶段(透析前口服剂量10毫克)、低温透析液阶段(35.5摄氏度)和联合治疗阶段(米多君10毫克,透析液温度35.5摄氏度)。每个阶段包括连续9次血液透析治疗。对11例已知有症状性IDH的患者(6例男性,5例女性;平均年龄67.5岁)进行了研究。对该队列进行了血压测量(透析前血压、透析中最低血压、透析后血压)、体重、实验室检查值及IDH干预措施的随访。与对照阶段相比,米多君和低温透析液治疗时透析中最低血压明显改善(收缩压[SBP]分别为103.9±4.1[平均值±平均标准误差]和102.6±2.9,而对照阶段为90.6±2.5毫米汞柱;P<0.001),透析后血压也是如此(SBP分别为116.9±4.0和118.2±3.5,而对照阶段为109.0±2.1毫米汞柱;P<0.01)。此外,与对照阶段相比,联合治疗阶段透析中最低血压明显改善(SBP为103.7±4.2,而对照阶段为90.6±2.5毫米汞柱;P<0.001),透析后血压也是如此(SBP为122.1±4.6,而对照阶段为109.0±2.1毫米汞柱;P<0.01)。与对照相比,米多君和低温透析液治疗时IDH的护理干预次数和生理盐水输注量显著减少。两种疗法均有使低血压症状改善的趋势。包括Kt/V在内的实验室检查值,米多君或低温透析液治疗后均无明显变化。这项前瞻性研究表明,米多君和低温透析液都是治疗有症状性IDH的有效方法。两种疗法联合应用似乎并无额外益处。