IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i7-8pe1561-e1570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the prevalence of intradialytic hypotension in a satellite dialysis clinic: Are we too complacent?

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Steinwandel
  • Nick Gibson
  • Mandy Towell‐Barnard
  • Richard Parsons
  • James JR Rippey
  • Johan Rosman

Abstract

Aims and objectives To measure the prevalence of symptomatic (S‐IDH) and asymptomatic intradialytic hypotension (A‐IDH) or postdialysis overhydration in a satellite haemodialysis clinic in Western Australia. Background Intradialytic hypotension is one of the most common side effects of haemodialysis caused by ultrafiltration provoking a temporary volume depletion. The prevalence of asymptomatic hypotension during dialysis has been rarely reported, but is considered to have the same negative consequences as symptomatic hypotension on various end organs like the brain and the gastrointestinal tract. Design Observational study on a retrospective 3‐month period of nursing recorded fluid‐related adverse events. Methods Data collection on the occurrence of S‐IDH and A‐IDH during a total of 2,357 haemodialysis treatments in 64 patients. Body weight of patients at the time of cessation of treatment was recorded, and patients, whose weight exceeded their ideal body weight by at least 0.5 kg, were classified as overhydrated. Data analysis was performed using spss version 24 software. Results Symptomatic intradialytic hypotension was the most common adverse event measured in this cohort, and occurred during 221 (9.4%) of all treatments, whereas asymptomatic intradialytic hypotension occurred in 88 (3.7%) of all treatments. The total occurrence of intradialytic hypotension was 13.1%, and symptomatic was observed in 30 patients, implying that nearly every second patient had at least one symptomatic episode within 3 months. Overhydration occurred in a total of 103 (4.4%) of all treatments, and involved 17 patients. Conclusions Symptomatic and asymptomatic intradialytic hypotension were the most commonly observed adverse events in this cohort; overhydration occurrence was considerably less common. Relevance to clinical practice The high occurrence of hypotension‐related events demonstrates that ultrafiltration treatment goals in satellite dialysis clinics are sometimes overestimated, resulting in regular significant symptomatic episodes for the patient. Raising the awareness of the prevalence of IDH amongst renal nurses could be an essential initial step before collectively preventative strategies in haemodialysis satellite units are implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Steinwandel & Nick Gibson & Mandy Towell‐Barnard & Richard Parsons & James JR Rippey & Johan Rosman, 2018. "Measuring the prevalence of intradialytic hypotension in a satellite dialysis clinic: Are we too complacent?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1561-1570, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:7-8:p:e1561-e1570
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14309
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mette S Ludvigsen & Hanne M Hermansen & Magnus Lindberg, 2015. "The quality of nursing care during intradialytic fluid removal in haemodialysis: time to change practice?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1733-1736, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:7-8:p:e1561-e1570. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.