A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Albumin versus Saline for the Treatment of Intradialytic Hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is the most common complication of hemodialysis. Symptomatic IDH requires the administration of fluid and often results in the early termination of dialysis, both of which may prevent adequate fluid removal. The optimal fluid for the treatment of IDH remains unknown. A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was performed in 72 chronic hemodialysis patients to determine whether 5% albumin was more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved, which was defined as the actual ultrafiltration volume divided by target ultrafiltration volume. Secondary outcome measures included postdialysis BP, time to restore BP, recurrent IDH, and treatment failure (inability to restore BP with 750 ml of study fluid). The percentage of target ultrafiltration achieved was 0.84 +/- 0.17 for 5% albumin compared with 0.80 +/- 0.16 for saline (P = 0.14). The postdialysis systolic BP (121 +/- 19 mmHg versus 117 +/- 19 mmHg; P = 0.32), postdialysis diastolic BP (63 +/- 9 mmHg versus 61 +/- 9 mmHg; P = 0.33), volume of study fluid used to treat IDH (403 +/- 170 ml versus 428 +/- 191 ml; P = 0.34), time required to restore the BP (7.9 +/- 6.6 min versus 9.9 +/- 7.5 min; P = 0.09), total nursing time required to manage the hypotensive episode (15.1 +/- 7.2 min versus 15.9 +/- 7.3 min; P = 0.47), number of treatment failures (22% versus 24%; P = 1.0), and the frequency of recurrent IDH (36% versus 36%) were not significantly different when 5% albumin was used compared with saline. It is concluded that 5% albumin is no more effective than normal saline for the treatment of IDH in chronic hemodialysis patients. Normal saline should be used as the initial fluid for the treatment of IDH.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".