Telehealth for the management of blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Luo ◽  
Meiqin Ye ◽  
Jiaowang Tan ◽  
Qiong Huang ◽  
Xindong Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Serum Creatinine ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Most patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) management as recommended. Meanwhile, the effects of promising intervention and telehealth on BP control in CKD patients remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of telehealth for BP in CKD non-dialysis patients. Methods Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials on telehealth for BP control of CKD3-5 non-dialysis patients. We analysed systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) with a fixed-effects model. Results Three studies, with total 680 subjects, were included in our systematic review and two were included for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed decreased SBP (pooled mean difference (MD), −5.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), −11.34, 1.14; p > 0.05, p = 0.11), increased DBP (pooled MD, 0.45; 95% CI, −4.24, 5.13; p > 0.05, p = 0.85), decreased serum creatinine (pooled MD, −0.38; 95% CI, −0.83, 0.07; p > 0.05, p = 0.10) and maintained eGFR (pooled MD, 4.72; 95% CI, −1.85, 11.29; p > 0.05, p = 0.16) in the telehealth group. There was no significant difference from the control group. MAP (MD, 0.6; 95% CI, −6.61, 7.81; p > 0.05, p = 0.87) and BP control rate ( p > 0.05, p = 0.8), respectively, shown in two studies also demonstrated no statistical significance in the telehealth group. Conclusions There was no statistically significant evidence to support the superiority of telehealth for BP management in CKD patients. This suggests further studies with improved study design and optimised intervention are needed in the future.

scholarly journals Oral Bicarbonate Therapy in Non-Haemodialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
May Khei Hu ◽  
Miles D. Witham ◽  
Roy L. Soiza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Metabolic Acidosis ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Bicarbonate Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Metabolic acidosis is a common complication in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and is associated with an accelerated decline in renal function. Oral bicarbonate therapy has been used to counteract metabolic acidosis in CKD for decades. However, until recently, there have been very few intervention studies testing the effectiveness of bicarbonate therapy at improving metabolic acidosis or its consequences in patients with CKD. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the outcomes of all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of oral bicarbonate therapy in adults with CKD. Ovid MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and Cochrane Library were searched in mid-October 2018 for English literature, with no restrictions applied to the publication status or date. Seven RCTs that recruited 815 participants met our inclusion criteria after full text review. Oral bicarbonate supplementation resulted in a slightly higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference 3.1 mL/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI 1.3–4.9) and serum bicarbonate levels (mean difference 3.4 mmol/L; 95% CI 1.9–4.9) at the end of follow-up (three months to five years) compared to those given placebo or conventional CKD treatment. When limited to studies reporting outcomes at one year, the positive effect of oral bicarbonate therapy on eGFR was attenuated. There were no significant treatment effects in other parameters such as systolic blood pressure (BP) and weight. These findings should be interpreted with caution and further trial evidence is needed to establish the net overall benefit or harm of oral bicarbonate therapy in CKD.

scholarly journals Effects of statins in patients with chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 336 (7645) ◽  
pp. 645-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni F M Strippoli ◽  
Sankar D Navaneethan ◽  
David W Johnson ◽  
Vlado Perkovic ◽  
Fabio Pellegrini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Green tea catechins and blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1299-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saman Khalesi ◽  
Jing Sun ◽  
Nicholas Buys ◽  
Arash Jamshidi ◽  
Elham Nikbakht-Nasrabadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Green Tea ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Tea Catechins ◽  
Green Tea Catechins ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Lowering blood pressure after acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data from randomised controlled trials participating in the Blood Pressure in Acute Stroke Collaboration (BASC)

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e030121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom J Moullaali ◽  
Xia Wang ◽  
Lisa J Woodhouse ◽  
Zhe Kang Law ◽  
Candice Delcourt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Intracerebral Haemorrhage ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionConflicting results from multiple randomised trials indicate that the methods and effects of blood pressure (BP) reduction after acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are complex. The Blood pressure in Acute Stroke Collaboration is an international collaboration, which aims to determine the optimal management of BP after acute stroke including ICH.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data (IPD) guideline. A search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception will be conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of BP management in adults with acute spontaneous (non-traumatic) ICH enrolled within the first 7 days of symptom onset. Authors of studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be invited to share their IPD. The primary outcome will be functional outcome according to the modified Rankin Scale. Safety outcomes will be early neurological deterioration, symptomatic hypotension and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will include death and neuroradiological and haemodynamic variables. Meta-analyses of pooled IPD using the intention-to-treat dataset of included trials, including subgroup analyses to assess modification of the effects of BP lowering by time to treatment, treatment strategy and patient’s demographic, clinical and prestroke neuroradiological characteristics.Ethics and disseminationNo new patient data will be collected nor is there any deviation from the original purposes of each study where ethical approvals were granted; therefore, further ethical approval is not required. Results will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141136.

Should the duration of head bandaging be reduced after pinnaplasty? A systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 128 (11) ◽  
pp. 948-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
A E L McMurran ◽  
I Khan ◽  
S Mohamad ◽  
M Shakeel ◽  
H Kubba
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
National Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Library

AbstractBackground:It is common practice to use head bandages for 7–10 days following pinnaplasty. However, head bandages are often troublesome for patients and can lead to serious complications.Method:A systematic review was performed to evaluate the use of head bandages after pinnaplasty. A search of Medline, Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO collections), the Cochrane Library, Pubmed (US National Library of Medicine) and Google Scholar identified 34 related articles. Of these, 14 were deemed relevant and 2 randomised controlled trials, 1 cohort study, 3 case series and 1 literature review met the inclusion criteria.Results:The two randomised controlled trials show no statistically significant difference in complications when a head bandage was used for the standard 7–10 days, for 24 hours or not at all. The three case series show that using a head bandage for 24 hours or not at all are safe alternatives. The review article recommended that when head bandages are applied after pinnaplasty it should be for the shortest duration possible.Conclusion:Based on the available evidence, not using a head bandage at all or using one for a maximum of 24 hours following pinnaplasty is recommended.

Comparison between Intravenous Iron and Oral Iron Preparations for the Treatment of Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3748-3748
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Benaya Rozen-Zvi ◽  
Mical Paul ◽  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Gafter Uzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Iron Preparation ◽  
Iv Iron

Abstract Background: There is confounding data regarding the best method of iron supplementation in chronic kidney disease (CKD), without a consistent approach in clinical practice. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron versus oral iron in patients treated for anemia of CKD. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing IV iron preparation with oral iron preparation for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD (stage III, IV and V). The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until 2007. Primary outcomes: absolute hemoglobin (Hb) level or change in Hb level from baseline at two months or at end of study; all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in predialysis patient and adverse events. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for outcomes with continuous variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and pooled. Results: Our search yielded 11 trials which compared IV iron preparations (iron sucrose, iron gluconate or iron dextran) to oral iron. Compared to oral iron, there was a significant rise in Hb level in the IV iron treated hemodialysis patients (WMD 1.17; 95%CI 0.19–2.15, fig). Significant heterogeneity was observed due to different baseline Hb values and baseline iron status, different dosages of oral iron, and different dosages of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA). For predialysis patients, there was a small but significant difference in the Hb level favoring the IV iron group (WMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.15–0.4, fig). For both groups effect estimates were not influenced by ESA administration. In predialysis patients, there was no significant difference in the risk for requiring RRT during the trial between the different groups (RR 0.63; 95%CI 0.25–1.65). Data on all-cause mortality were sparse (RR 0.54; 95%CI 0.09–3.13, 3 trials) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.65–1.24) between the IV and oral treated patients. However, discontinuations of treatment were more common (RR 3.27; 95%CI 1.15–9.26) for the IV iron treated patients. Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that dialysis patients treated with IV iron have better Hb response than patients treated with oral iron. For predialysis patients, this effect is very small. IV iron should be preferred in the treatment of anemia in dialysis patients. In predialysis patients the slight advantage in Hb response should be weighed against the inconvenience and cost of IV iron treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document