RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in people receiving dialysis that is associated with an increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease and depression. Fatigue can also impair quality of life (QoL) and the ability to participate in daily activities. Fatigue has been established by patients, caregivers and health professionals as a core outcome for haemodialysis (HD). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, including HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD), including any setting and frequency of the dialysis treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 18 October 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions affecting levels of fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis were included. Studies were eligible if fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes were reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Any mode, frequency, prescription, and duration of therapy were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardised MD (SMD) if different scales were used. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were eligible. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were compared either to placebo or control, or to another pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. In the majority of domains, risks of bias in the included studies were unclear or high. In low certainty evidence, when compared to control, exercise may improve fatigue (4 studies, 217 participants (Iowa Fatigue Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), or Haemodialysis-Related Fatigue scale score): SMD -1.18, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.31; I2 = 87%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or standard care, aromatherapy may improve fatigue (7 studies, 542 participants (Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Rhoten Fatigue Scale (RFS), PFS or Brief Fatigue Inventory score): SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.50; I2 = 93%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to no intervention, massage may improve fatigue (7 studies, 657 participants (FSS, RFS, PFS or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.47, -0.65; I2 = 81%) and increase energy (2 studies, 152 participants (VAS score): MD 4.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 8.06, I2 = 59%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or control, acupressure may reduce fatigue (6 studies, 459 participants (PFS score, revised PFS, or Fatigue Index): SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.25; I2 = 75%) in HD. A wide range of heterogenous interventions and fatigue-related outcomes were reported for exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure, preventing our capability to pool and analyse the data. Due to the paucity of studies, the effects of pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes, including non-physiological neutral amino acid, relaxation with or without music therapy, meditation, exercise with nandrolone, nutritional supplementation, cognitive-behavioural therapy, ESAs, frequent HD sections, home blood pressure monitoring, blood flow rate reduction, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, beta-blockers, anabolic steroids, glucose-enriched dialysate, or light therapy, were very uncertain. The effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on death, cardiovascular diseases, vascular access, QoL, depression, anxiety, hypertension or diabetes were sparse. No studies assessed tiredness, exhaustion or asthenia. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure may improve fatigue compared to placebo, standard care or no intervention. Pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions had uncertain effects on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis. Future adequately powered, high-quality studies are likely to change the estimated effects of interventions for fatigue and fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Insuficiência Renal , Humanos , Fadiga/etiologia , Fadiga/terapia , Rim , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Diálise RenalRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Acute renal failure is characterised by abrupt and sustained decline in glomerular filtration rate, which leads to accumulation of urea and other chemicals in the blood. The term acute kidney injury has been introduced to encompass a wide spectrum of acute alterations in kidney function from mild to severe. Acute kidney injury is classified according to the RIFLE criteria, in which a change from baseline serum creatinine or urine output determines the level of renal dysfunction. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent acute kidney injury in people at high risk? What are the effects of treatments for critically ill people with acute kidney injury? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 82 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: albumin supplementation plus loop diuretics (intravenous), aminoglycosides, aminophylline, amphotericin B, calcium channel blockers, contrast media, dialysis membranes, dopamine, early versus late dialysis, extended daily dialysis, fenoldopam, loop diuretics, mannitol, N-acetylcysteine, natriuretic peptides, renal replacement therapy, sodium bicarbonate-based fluids, sodium chloride-based fluids, and theophylline.
Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda , Diálise Renal , Acetilcisteína/administração & dosagem , Meios de Contraste , Creatinina/sangue , Taxa de Filtração Glomerular , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although studies have shown that African American haemodialysis patients report better overall quality of life than Whites, racial differences in depression and symptom burden remain less well characterized. The aim of this study was to compare these domains between African American and White patients on chronic haemodialysis. METHODS: We surveyed African American and White maintenance haemodialysis patients. Depression was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Cognitive Depression Index (CDI). Symptoms were evaluated using the Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI). RESULTS: Among the 82 Whites and 78 African Americans enrolled, there were no racial differences in the prevalence of depression (27% in African Americans vs 27% in Whites, P = 1.0), BDI Scores (11.2 vs 10.9, P = 0.6) or CDI scores (6.0 vs 6.0, P = 0.9). Symptom burden was substantial in both African Americans and Whites (median number of symptoms 8.5 and 9.0, respectively) with no racial differences in the overall burden or severity of symptoms. However, based on a single item, African Americans were more likely to describe their religious/spiritual beliefs as "very important". Adjustment for demographic and treatment characteristics had no impact on the associations of race with depression or symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and symptoms are highly prevalent in both African American and White haemodialysis patients, without racial differences in these health-related domains. In exploratory analyses, spiritual/religious beliefs appear to be of greater importance to African Americans. The relevance of these observations to the advantages in quality of life and survival among African Americans on haemodialysis warrants further investigation.