4.4 Article

Cardiovascular effects of cholecalciferol treatment in dialysis patients - a randomized controlled trial

期刊

BMC NEPHROLOGY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-50

关键词

Cholecalciferol; Chronic kidney disease; Cardiac function; Brain natriuretic peptide; Blood pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients on chronic dialysis are at increased risk of vitamin D deficiency. In observational studies plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (p-25(OH) D) levels are inversely correlated with plasma BNP and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Whether a causal relation exists has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that cholecalciferol supplementation improves cardiac function and reduces blood pressure (BP) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) in patients on chronic dialysis. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we investigated the effect of 75 mu g (3000 IU) cholecalciferol daily for 6 months, in patients on chronic dialysis. We performed two-dimensional echocardiography, with doppler and tissue-doppler imaging, 24-h ambulatory BP (24-h BP), PWV, augmentation index (AIx), central BP (cBP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurements at baseline and after 6 months. Results: Sixty-four patients were allocated to the study. Fifty dialysis patients with a mean age of 68 years (range: 46-88) and baseline p-25(OH) D of 28 (20; 53) nmol/l completed the trial. Cholecalciferol increased left ventricular (LV) volume, but had no impact on other parameters regarding LV structure or left atrial structure. LV systolic function, LV diastolic function, PWV, cBP, AIx and BNP were not changed in placebo or cholecalciferol group at follow-up. 24-h BP decreased significantly in placebo group and tended to decrease in cholecalciferol group without any difference between treatments. Conclusion: Six months of cholecalciferol treatment in patients on chronic dialysis did not improve 24-h BP, arterial stiffness or cardiac function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据