Review of clinical outcomes in nocturnal haemodialysis patients after renal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD) is a novel form of haemodialysis therapy that is associated with improved blood pressure control when compared to conventional haemodialysis (CHD). Current studies suggest that NHD lowers blood pressure through a decrease in peripheral resistance. The graft and blood pressure outcomes of NHD patients who undergo renal transplantation are unknown. METHODS: We reviewed the renal allograft and blood pressure outcomes of 15 NHD patients who underwent renal transplantation. An age and vintage matched cohort of 29 CHD patients was used as controls. RESULTS: The rate of delayed graft function (DGF) tended to be higher in the NHD group compared to the CHD group (64 vs 41%, P = 0.15), however the 1-year graft function (53+/-6 vs 59+/-5 ml/min, P = 0.426) and graft survival (92 vs 95%, P = 0.751) were similar. Intra-operatively, NHD patients had lower minimum systolic (92+/-5 vs 109+/-4, P = 0.03) and diastolic (48+/-3 vs 64+/-2, P = 0.02) blood pressures in comparison to the CHD cohort. Pathologically, acute tubular necrosis accounted for 100% of DGF in the NHD group in contrast to 75% in the CHD population (P = 0.01). Pre-transplant mean systolic BP (sBP) was significantly lower in the NHD group compared to the CHD group (113+/-6 vs 145+/-10 mmHg, P<0.001). At 12 months post-transplant, mean sBP increased from baseline in the NHD group ( triangle up sBP 22+/-7 mmHg, P = 0.009) while in the CHD group mean sBP fell (Delta sBP -14+/-5 mmHg, P = 0.014). Mean arterial and diastolic BP exhibited similar changes. These trends persisted after 24 months of post-transplant follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-year graft outcomes and blood pressures are similar for NHD and CHD patients who undergo renal transplantation. Unlike CHD patients, NHD patients experienced a significant fall in their intra-operative blood pressures, which likely contributed towards the delayed graft function in this cohort of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to examine the underlying differences in haemodynamics and long-term graft survival between the two renal replacement modalities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".