ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Risk of intradialytic hypotension among different antihypertensives in haemodialysis patients.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluating the impact of antihypertensives on intradialytic hypotension (IDH) risk is crucial, given their frequent use in haemodialysis (HD) patients. This study assessed the comparative safety of various antihypertensives in relation to IDH. Methods: This retrospective cohort study at a tertiary medical centre in Taiwan included adult patients initiating HD from 2016 to 2021. Using electronic health records, we retrieved patient demographics and data covering the first 3 years of HD. We classified antihypertensives as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), alpha blockers, beta blockers and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs). We defined IDH as a nadir intradialytic blood pressure decrease to <90/100 mmHg (Nadir 90/100) or a decrease of 40 mmHg (Fall 40). Using a generalized linear mixed model, we analysed odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for IDH. Results: This study included 115 patients, covering 39 371 HD sessions over an average follow-up of 27.5 months. We identified 4534 IDH events based on Nadir 90/100, with event rates of 5.0% for ACEIs/ARBs, 3.0% for alpha blockers, 6.7% for beta blockers and 4.0% for DHP-CCBs. For Fall 40, we found 4814 IDH events, with rates of 11.5%, 7.7%, 11.4% and 9.2%, respectively. ACEIs/ARBs and beta blockers did not significantly alter IDH risk. CCBs and alpha blockers significantly reduced IDH risk, with Nadir 90/100-adjusted ORs of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76) for CCBs and 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.74) for alpha blockers, compared with sessions without these medications. For Fall 40, adjusted ORs were 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.83) for CCBs and 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.74) for alpha blockers. Conclusions: Use of beta blockers and ACEIs/ARBs had a neutral effect on IDH risk, while DHP-CCBs and alpha blockers were associated with lower risks of IDH and might be considered for patients with IDH risk factors. These findings support the safe use of antihypertensives in HD patients, offering valuable guidance for clinical medication adjustments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.