S. alhabardi, Maryam Aldhaefi, Mohammed Alessa, M. Alammari, Yousef A. Al-Rajhi, Rami Bustami
{"title":"米多林预防三级转诊医院高危患者透析内低血压的回顾性研究","authors":"S. alhabardi, Maryam Aldhaefi, Mohammed Alessa, M. Alammari, Yousef A. Al-Rajhi, Rami Bustami","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.17325/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background:\nIntradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication during hemodialysis procedure. Midodrine, an oral α-1 adrenergic agonist, is commonly used to prevent IDH. However, limited data is available to demonstrate midodrine effectiveness in prevention of IDH in high-risk hemodialysis patients.\nObjective:\nTo describe the clinical outcomes of using midodrine in patients receiving hemodialysis concerning the incidence of IDH. Also, we aimed to explore the appropriate dose for midodrine use to prevent IDH.\nMethodology\nA retrospective cohort of adult with end-stage-renal failure.\nExposure: Midodrine.\nOutcomes measure: IDH was defined as a decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) by ≥20 mmHg or a decline in main arterial pressure (MAP) by ≥10 mmHg during hemodialysis session. Recurrent IDH was defined as three or more episodes of IDH throughout a year of starting midodrine.\nAnalysis: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of IDH and recurrent IDH. We also, compared the risk of recurrent IDH across various doses of midodrine use.\nResult:\nFrom a total of 68-screened patients’ charts, 45 patients were included in the final analysis. 41.8% (n=28) of the study population had an IDH that required additional interventions to restore the SBP and MAP. IDH occurred in 68% (n=19, P=0.03) of patients with hypoalbuminemia. Recurrent IDH occurred in 36% (n=16) of the patients over their hemodialysis procedure. Incidence of treatment failure (57%, p= 0.02) and recurrent IDH (36%, p=0.04) were statistically significant in patients who received midodrine three time per week (57%) in comparison to those who received more than three days per week\nConclusion:\nThis exploratory study shows that a considerable proportion of patients receiving midodrine did not develop IDH or recurrent IDH. A long-term follow-up study with larger number of patients in comparison to the control group would be useful to evaluate the magnitude of efficacy of midodrine in hemodialysis patients with high risk for IDH. Moreover, a future prospective trial that focus on an important clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular events and mortality with midodrin is warranted.","PeriodicalId":91747,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hypertension and management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Midodrine for Prevention of Intradialytic Hypotension in High Risk Patients at a Tertiary Referral Hospital: A Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"S. alhabardi, Maryam Aldhaefi, Mohammed Alessa, M. Alammari, Yousef A. Al-Rajhi, Rami Bustami\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.2.17325/v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background:\\nIntradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication during hemodialysis procedure. Midodrine, an oral α-1 adrenergic agonist, is commonly used to prevent IDH. However, limited data is available to demonstrate midodrine effectiveness in prevention of IDH in high-risk hemodialysis patients.\\nObjective:\\nTo describe the clinical outcomes of using midodrine in patients receiving hemodialysis concerning the incidence of IDH. Also, we aimed to explore the appropriate dose for midodrine use to prevent IDH.\\nMethodology\\nA retrospective cohort of adult with end-stage-renal failure.\\nExposure: Midodrine.\\nOutcomes measure: IDH was defined as a decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) by ≥20 mmHg or a decline in main arterial pressure (MAP) by ≥10 mmHg during hemodialysis session. Recurrent IDH was defined as three or more episodes of IDH throughout a year of starting midodrine.\\nAnalysis: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of IDH and recurrent IDH. We also, compared the risk of recurrent IDH across various doses of midodrine use.\\nResult:\\nFrom a total of 68-screened patients’ charts, 45 patients were included in the final analysis. 41.8% (n=28) of the study population had an IDH that required additional interventions to restore the SBP and MAP. IDH occurred in 68% (n=19, P=0.03) of patients with hypoalbuminemia. Recurrent IDH occurred in 36% (n=16) of the patients over their hemodialysis procedure. Incidence of treatment failure (57%, p= 0.02) and recurrent IDH (36%, p=0.04) were statistically significant in patients who received midodrine three time per week (57%) in comparison to those who received more than three days per week\\nConclusion:\\nThis exploratory study shows that a considerable proportion of patients receiving midodrine did not develop IDH or recurrent IDH. A long-term follow-up study with larger number of patients in comparison to the control group would be useful to evaluate the magnitude of efficacy of midodrine in hemodialysis patients with high risk for IDH. Moreover, a future prospective trial that focus on an important clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular events and mortality with midodrin is warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of hypertension and management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of hypertension and management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.17325/v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hypertension and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.17325/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Midodrine for Prevention of Intradialytic Hypotension in High Risk Patients at a Tertiary Referral Hospital: A Retrospective Study
Background:
Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication during hemodialysis procedure. Midodrine, an oral α-1 adrenergic agonist, is commonly used to prevent IDH. However, limited data is available to demonstrate midodrine effectiveness in prevention of IDH in high-risk hemodialysis patients.
Objective:
To describe the clinical outcomes of using midodrine in patients receiving hemodialysis concerning the incidence of IDH. Also, we aimed to explore the appropriate dose for midodrine use to prevent IDH.
Methodology
A retrospective cohort of adult with end-stage-renal failure.
Exposure: Midodrine.
Outcomes measure: IDH was defined as a decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) by ≥20 mmHg or a decline in main arterial pressure (MAP) by ≥10 mmHg during hemodialysis session. Recurrent IDH was defined as three or more episodes of IDH throughout a year of starting midodrine.
Analysis: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of IDH and recurrent IDH. We also, compared the risk of recurrent IDH across various doses of midodrine use.
Result:
From a total of 68-screened patients’ charts, 45 patients were included in the final analysis. 41.8% (n=28) of the study population had an IDH that required additional interventions to restore the SBP and MAP. IDH occurred in 68% (n=19, P=0.03) of patients with hypoalbuminemia. Recurrent IDH occurred in 36% (n=16) of the patients over their hemodialysis procedure. Incidence of treatment failure (57%, p= 0.02) and recurrent IDH (36%, p=0.04) were statistically significant in patients who received midodrine three time per week (57%) in comparison to those who received more than three days per week
Conclusion:
This exploratory study shows that a considerable proportion of patients receiving midodrine did not develop IDH or recurrent IDH. A long-term follow-up study with larger number of patients in comparison to the control group would be useful to evaluate the magnitude of efficacy of midodrine in hemodialysis patients with high risk for IDH. Moreover, a future prospective trial that focus on an important clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular events and mortality with midodrin is warranted.