Residual Renal Function and Effect of Low-Sodium Solution on Blood Pressure in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Residual renal function (RRF) affects sodium and fluid balance. The aim of this analysis was to examine the impact of RRF on the effect of a sodium-reduced peritoneal dialysis fluid (PDF) on blood pressure (BP). Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, controlled double-blind clinical trial with 82 patients on continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) treated with a low-sodium (125 mmol/L Na) or a standard-sodium (134 mmol/L Na) PDF. Subgroups according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline (≤ / > 6 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) were analyzed for BP and antihypertensive medication. Results In the low-GFR group on low-sodium PDF ( N = 26), systolic BP was reduced from 152 ± 24 mmHg at baseline to 137 ± 21 mmHg at week 12, diastolic BP from 90 ± 16 mmHg to 83 ± 11 mmHg. In the low-GFR group on standard-sodium PDF and in the high-GFR group on both PDF types, only minor changes were observed. For the low-GFR subgroup, the confounder-adjusted mean study group difference in systolic BP at week 12 between low-sodium and standard-sodium PDF was -16.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] -27.2 to -6.6) mmHg, for diastolic BP, it was -7.0 (95% CI -12.6 to -1.4) mmHg. In both GFR subgroups, more patients had a reduced daily dose of antihypertensive medication and fewer patients an increased daily dose in the low-sodium compared with the standard-sodium group at week 12. Conclusions The reduction of BP with a sodium-reduced PDF seems to be more effective in patients with no or low RRF than in patients with residual capacity of renal sodium and fluid control.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".