4.5 Article

Cognitive Function and Dialysis Adequacy: No Clear Relationship

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 33-38

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000322611

关键词

Cognitive function; Dialysis adequacy; Chronic kidney disease

资金

  1. NIH [R21 DK068310, K23 DK071636, K24 DK078204, R01 DK078204]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K23DK071636, R21DK070249, R01DK080112, K24DK078204, R21DK068310] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Cognitive impairment is common in hemodialysis patients and may be impacted by multiple patient and treatment characteristics. The impact of dialysis dose on cognitive function remains uncertain, particularly in the current era of increased dialysis dose and flux. Methods: We explored the cross-sectional relationship between dialysis adequacy and cognitive function in a cohort of maintenance hemodialysis patients. Adequacy was defined as the average of the 3 most proximate single pool Kt/V assessments. A detailed neurocognitive battery was administered during the 1st hour of dialysis. Multivariable linear regression models were adjusted for age, sex, education, race and other clinical and demographic characteristics. Results: Among 273 patients who underwent cognitive testing, the mean (SD) age was 63 (17) years and the median dialysis duration was 13 months, 47% were woman, 22% were African American, and 48% had diabetes. The mean (SD) Kt/V was 1.51 (0.24). In univariate, parsimonious and multivariable models, there were no significant relationships between decreased cognitive function and lower Kt/V. Conclusion: In contrast to several older studies, there is no association between lower Kt/V and worse cognitive performance in the current era of increased dialysis dose. Future studies should address the longitudinal relationship between adequacy of dialysis and cognitive function to confirm these findings. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.5
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