Why the study?
Does an increased extracorporeal blood flow rate up to 450 cc/min adversely affect left ventricular function in stable patients on chronic hemodialysis?
Does an increased extracorporeal blood flow rate up to 450 cc/min adversely affect left ventricular function in stable patients on chronic hemodialysis?
Increasing hemodialysis blood flow rate up to 450 cc/min does not adversely affect echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular function in stable patients.
Supports higher blood flow rates to 450 cc/min in stable hemodialysis patients; confirms no adverse effects on left ventricular parameters in this RCT.
The effect of increased extracorporeal blood flow rate on left ventricular (LV) function has been studied during volume-controlled bicarbonate hemodialysis. Ten stable patients on chronic hemodialysis, with a mean age of 28 years (range 19-38) were studied using two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. The mean time on hemodialysis was 32 months (range 3-60). All patients were investigated during three dialysis sessions on the first day of the week for 3 consecutive weeks. The blood flow rate was chosen randomly as 250, 350, or 450 cc/min. Apart from the time of hemodialysis and blood flow rate, other parameters of the hemodialysis were kept stable during all three sessions. Echocardiographic studies were done before, at mid dialysis, and during the last 15 min of each dialysis session. The following parameters were evaluated: heart rate, mean blood pressure, shortening fraction, ejection fraction, cardiac output, and pre-ejection period/LV ejection time ratio. The changes of the measured cardiac parameters at the beginning, middle and end of each session were not significantly different. Furthermore, the differences in changes between the three different sessions were comparable. Our results indicate that an increase in dialysis blood flow rate up to 450 cc/min does not have an adverse effect on the left ventricle in patients on maintenance hemodialysis and with stable cardiovascular function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alfurayh et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: