...
首页> 外文期刊>Seminars in dialysis >A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Assessing Hemodialysis Access Thrombosis Based on Access Flow Monitoring: Where Do We Stand?
【24h】

A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Assessing Hemodialysis Access Thrombosis Based on Access Flow Monitoring: Where Do We Stand?

机译:基于访问流量监测的评估血液透析访问血栓形成的随机临床试验的荟萃分析:我们站在哪里?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommends the routine use of hemodialysis arteriovenous (AV) access surveillance to detect hemodynamically significant stenoses and appropriately correct them to reduce the incidence of thrombosis and to improve accesses patency rates. Access blood flow monitoring is considered as one of the preferred surveillance method for both AV fistulas (AVF) and AV grafts (AVG); however, published studies have reported conflicting results of its utility that led healthcare professionals to doubt the benefits of this surveillance method. We performed a meta-analysis of the published randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs) of AV access surveillance using access blood flow monitoring. Our hypothesis was that access blood flow monitoring lowers the risk of AV access thrombosis and that the outcome differs between AVF and AVG. The estimated overall pooled risk ratio (RR) of thrombosis was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13) favoring access blood flow monitoring. The pooled RR of thrombosis were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.41-1.01) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.46) in the subgroups of only AVF and only AVG, respectively. Our results added to the uncertainty of access blood flow monitoring as a surveillance method of hemodialysis accesses.
机译:美国国家肾脏基金会肾脏疾病成果质量计划建议常规使用血液透析动静脉(AV)通路监测来检测血液动力学显着的狭窄,并适当纠正它们以减少血栓形成的发生率并提高通路通畅率。对于AV瘘(AVF)和AV移植物(AVG),通路血流监测被认为是首选的监测方法之一。但是,已发表的研究报告了其实用性的矛盾结果,导致医疗保健专业人员对这种监视方法的好处产生怀疑。我们使用访问血流监测对已发表的AV访问监测的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了荟萃分析。我们的假设是,通路血流监测可降低AV通路血栓形成的风险,并且AVF和AVG的结果有所不同。估计血栓形成的总合并风险比(RR)为0.87(95%置信区间[CI],0.67-1.13),有利于通路血流监测。在仅AVF和仅AVG的亚组中,血栓形成的合并RR分别为0.64(95%CI,0.41-1.01)和1.06(95%CI,0.77-1.46)。我们的结果增加了作为血液透析通路监测方法的通路血流监测的不确定性。

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