Examinando por Materia "Hemodiafiltration"

Mostrando 1 - 3 de 3

Acceso abierto
Effectiveness of hemodialysis compared to hemodiafiltration in reducing complications in chronic kidney disease patients
(Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, 2020-01-19) Quispe Flores, Anny Melissa; Tovar Soria, Winnie Kelly; Matta Solis, Eduardo Percy
Objective: Systematize the evidence on the effectiveness of hemodialysis compared to hemodiafiltration to reduce complications in patients with chronic kidney disease. Material and Methods: The project was an observational and retrospective systematic review. The population was made up of 20 scientific articles from which selection criteria were applied, leaving 10 articles as a sample, found in the databases: EBSCO, Pubmed, Scielo. Results: The results achieved from the systematic review come from Spain (3/10), Czech Republic (1/10), Mexico (1/10), Romania (1/10), USA (1/10), Australia (1 /10), Italy (1/10) and Saudi Arabia (1/10). 50% are randomized trials (5/10), 20% (2/10) cohort, 10% (1/10) are a systematic review and meta-analysis, 10% (1/10) experimental and 10% ( 1/10) control case. 70% (7/10) indicate that hemodiafiltration is more effective than hemodialysis in reducing complications in patients with chronic kidney disease. In 20% (2/10) there is greater effectiveness of hemodialysis compared to hemodiafiltration in patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Of the 10% of the evidence, it was found that there are no significant differences between both techniques. Conclusion: There is effectiveness of hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis to reduce complications in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Acceso abierto
Efficacy of the use of convective method (hemodiafiltration) compared to the use of diffusive method (hemodialysis) in reducing mortality (general and cardiovascular) in adult patients with end-stage renal failure.
(Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, 2018-07-08) Meléndez López, Edwin Moisés; Matta Solis, Hernan Hugo
Objective: Analyze and systematize the evidence found regarding the effectiveness of the convective method (Hemodiafiltration) vs. the use of diffusive method modalities (Hemodialysis) to decrease mortality (general and cardiovascular) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure. Materials and Methods: Systematic review, Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, with 10 scientific evidences obtained from the following databases: Epistemonikos and Pubmed. Therefore, 80% (8/10) are systematic reviews, 10% (1/10) are non-randomized trials, and 10% (1/10) are randomized trials. Of the total evidence, 20% (2/10) come from Romania, followed by 20% (2/10) from Spain, 10% (1/10) from Argentina, 10% (1/10) from Turkey, 10% (1/10) from the U.S., 10% (1/10) from Germany, 10% (1/10) from Australia, and 10% (1/10) from the Netherlands. Results: 70% of the evidence found indicate that the use of the convective method (HDF) is more effective than the use of the diffusive method (HD) in reducing mortality (cardiovascular or general) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure, while 30% indicate no significant difference between the two renal replacement therapies. Conclusion: Of the evidence, 7 out of 10 indicate that the use of the convective method (Hemodiafiltration) is more effective than the use of the diffusive method (Hemodialysis) in reducing mortality (cardiovascular and general) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure, while 3 out of 10 indicate no significant difference.
Acceso abierto
Efficacy of the use of convective method (hemodiafiltration) compared to the use of diffusive method (hemodialysis) in reducing mortality (general and cardiovascular) in adult patients with end-stage renal failure.
(Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, 2018-07-08) Bendezú Moreno, Wilma Erika; Meléndez López, Edwin Moisés; Matta Solis, Hernan Hugo
Objective: Analyze and systematize the evidence found regarding the effectiveness of the convective method (Hemodiafiltration) vs. the use of diffusive method modalities (Hemodialysis) to decrease mortality (general and cardiovascular) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure. Materials and Methods: Systematic review, Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, with 10 scientific evidences obtained from the following databases: Epistemonikos and Pubmed. Therefore, 80% (8/10) are systematic reviews, 10% (1/10) are non-randomized trials, and 10% (1/10) are randomized trials. Of the total evidence, 20% (2/10) come from Romania, followed by 20% (2/10) from Spain, 10% (1/10) from Argentina, 10% (1/10) from Turkey, 10% (1/10) from the U.S., 10% (1/10) from Germany, 10% (1/10) from Australia, and 10% (1/10) from the Netherlands. Results: 70% of the evidence found indicate that the use of the convective method (HDF) is more effective than the use of the diffusive method (HD) in reducing mortality (cardiovascular or general) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure, while 30% indicate no significant difference between the two renal replacement therapies. Conclusion: Of the evidence, 7 out of 10 indicate that the use of the convective method (Hemodiafiltration) is more effective than the use of the diffusive method (Hemodialysis) in reducing mortality (cardiovascular and general) in adult patients with terminal chronic kidney failure, while 3 out of 10 indicate no significant difference.