English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  There are many factors that can affect dialysis adequacy; such as the type of vascular access, filter type, device used, and the dose, and rout of erythropoietin stimulation agents (ESA) used. The aim of this study was investigating factors affecting Hemodialysis adequacy in cohort of Iranian patient with end stage renal disease (ESRD).    Methods:  This is a cross-sectional study conducted on 133 Hemodialysis patients referred to two dialysis units in Sistan-Baluchistan province in the cities of Zabol and Iranshahr, Iran. We have looked at, (the effects of the type of vascular access, the filter type, the device used, and the dose, route of delivery, and the type of ESA used) on Hemodialysis adequacy. Dialysis adequacy was calculated using kt/v formula, two-part information questionnaire including demographic data which also including access type, filter type, device used for hemodialysis (HD), type of Eprex injection, route of administration, blood groups and hemoglobin response to ESA were utilized. The data was analyzed using the SPSS v16 statistical software. Descriptive statistical methods, Mann-Whitney statistical test, and multiple regressions were used when applicable.    Results:  The range of calculated dialysis adequacy is 0.28 to 2.39 (units of adequacy of dialysis). 76.7% of patients are being dialyzed via AVF and 23.3% of patients used central venous catheters (CVC). There was no statistical significant difference between dialysis adequacy, vascular access type, device used for HD (Fresenius and B. Braun), and the filter used for HD (p> 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed between the adequacy of dialysis and Eprex injection and patients’ time of dialysis (p <0.05).    Conclusion:  Subcutaneous ESA (Eprex) injection and dialysis shift (being dialyzed in the morning) can have positive impact on dialysis adequacy. Patients should be educated on the facts that the type of device used for HD and the vascular access used has no significant effects on dialysis adequacy.

Factors Affecting Hemodialysis Adequacy in Cohort of Iranian Patient with End Stage Renal Disease