...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility and mortality of patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure: a prospective randomised multicentre trial. International Multicentre Study Group (see comments)
【24h】

Haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility and mortality of patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure: a prospective randomised multicentre trial. International Multicentre Study Group (see comments)

机译:透析依赖型急性肾衰竭患者的血液透析膜生物相容性和死亡率:一项前瞻性随机多中心试验。国际多中心研究组(见评论)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility (ie, the potential to activate complement and neutrophils) influences mortality of patients with acute renal failure. We did a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure treated with two different types of low-flux membrane. METHODS: 180 patients with acute renal failure were randomly assigned bioincompatible Cuprophan (n=90) or polymethyl-methacrylate (n=90) membranes. The main outcome was survival 14 days after the end of therapy (treatment success). Odds ratios for survival were calculated and the two groups were compared by Fisher's exact test. Analyses were based on patients treated according to protocol (76 Cuprophan, 84 polymethyl methacrylate). FINDINGS: At the start of dialysis, the groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, severity of illness (as calculated by APACHE II scores), prevalence of oliguria, or biochemical measures of acute renal failure. 44 patients (58% [95% CI 46-69]) assigned Cuprophan membranes and 50 patients (60% [48-70]) assigned polymethyl-methacrylate membranes survived. The odds ratio for treatment failure on Cuprophan compared with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was 1.07 (0.54-2.11; p=0.87). No difference between Cuprophan and polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was detected when the analysis was adjusted for age and APACHE II score. 18 patients in the Cuprophan group and 20 in the polymethyl-methacrylate group had clinical complications of therapy (mainly hypotension). INTERPRETATION: There were no differences in outcome for patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure between those treated with Cuprophan membranes and those treated with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes.
机译:背景:关于血液透析膜生物相容性(即激活补体和中性粒细胞的潜力)是否影响急性肾衰竭患者的死亡率存在争议。我们对接受两种不同类型的低通量膜治疗的依赖透析的急性肾衰竭患者进行了一项前瞻性随机多中心试验。方法:180例急性肾衰竭患者被随机分配生物相容性铜膜(n = 90)或聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(n = 90)膜。主要结局是治疗结束后14天的生存率(治疗成功)。计算存活率的几率,并通过Fisher精确检验比较两组。分析基于根据方案治疗的患者(76 Cuprophan,84聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯)进行。结果:在开始透析时,两组的年龄,性别,疾病严重程度(通过APACHE II评分计算),少尿的发生率或急性肾衰竭的生化指标无明显差异。分配有铜膜的患者有44例(58%[95%CI 46-69]),分配有聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯膜的有50例患者(60%[48-70])存活。与聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯膜相比,Cuprophan膜处理失败的比值比为1.07(0.54-2.11; p = 0.87)。调整年龄和APACHE II分数后,铜氨甲基丙烯酸酯膜和聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯膜之间没有差异。 Cuprophan组的18例患者和聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯组的20例患者存在临床治疗并发症(主要是低血压)。解释:透析依赖型急性肾衰竭患者的预后与使用铜环膜治疗的患者和用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯膜治疗的患者之间没有差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号