Intensive dialysis and blood pressure control: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of hypertension in hemodialysis (HD) patients has increased over the years. In the early days of maintenance HD blood pressure (BP) control was achieved in most patients. As sessions were shortened, the prevalence of hypertension increased. Yet, in principle, dialysis is able to control hypertension. Today, in programs using long HD, most patients are normotensive without antihypertensive medication. The same is true for patients on daily dialysis, but not for those on short thrice-weekly HD. In all studies reporting BP normalization, dry weight is regularly achieved. Why the poor control of hypertension now? At first sight the shortened session duration is the culprit. This is suggested by several epidemiologic observations and strongly supported by a prospective experience of changing the HD schedule (short to long HD or conversely) in the same group of patients. Recent studies, however, using strict volume control show that BP normalization can be obtained in conventional 3 x 4 hr/week dialysis with relatively low delivered Kt/V(urea). Therefore, prolonging the dialysis time and/or increasing the dialysis dose are not required to achieve BP control. Intensive dialysis most probably normalizes BP by getting the extracellular volume and the amount of sodium in the body back to normal. It acts in conjunction with a moderate dietary sodium restriction and the use of reasonably low dialysate sodium. With this approach improved BP control can be achieved in the vast majority of HD patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".