Cardiovascular impact in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: Clinical management considerations

Clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis of ineffective protection in haemodialysis patients

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical validity of indicators of the nursing diagnosis of "ineffective protection" in haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis patients have reduced protection. Studies on the nursing diagnosis of "ineffective protection" are scarce in the literature. The use of indicators to diagnose "ineffective protection" could improve the care of haemodialysis patients. The clinical usefulness of the indicators requires clinical validation.

DESIGN

This was a diagnostic accuracy study.

METHOD

This study assessed a sample of 200 patients undergoing haemodialysis in a reference clinic for nephrology during the first half of 2015. Operational definitions were created for each clinical indicator based on concept analysis and content validation by experts for these indicators. Diagnostic accuracy measurement was performed with latent class analysis with randomised effects.

RESULTS

The clinical indicator of "fatigue" had high sensitivity (p = .999) and specificity (p = 1.000) for the identification of "ineffective protection." Additionally, "maladaptive response to stress" (p = .711) and "coagulation change" (p = .653) were sensitive indicators. The main indicators that showed high specificity were "fever" (p = .987), "increased number of hospitalisations" (p = .911), "weakness" (p = .937), "infected vascular access" (p = .962) and "vascular access dysfunction" (p = .722).

CONCLUSION

A set of nine clinical indicators of "ineffective protection" were accurate and statistically significant for haemodialysis patients. Three clinical indicators showed sensitivity, and six indicators showed specificity.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Accurate measures for nursing diagnoses can help nurses confirm or rule out the probability of the occurrence of "ineffective protection" in patients undergoing haemodialysis.

Impressive predictive value of ankle-brachial index for very long-term outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease: IMPACT-ABI study

Background

The ankle—brachial index (ABI) is a marker of generalized atherosclerosis and is predictive of future cardiovascular events. However, few studies have assessed its relation to long-term future cardiovascular events, especially in patients with borderline ABI. We therefore evaluated the relationship between long-term future cardiovascular events and ABI.

Methods

In the IMPACT-ABI study, a single-center, retrospective cohort study, we enrolled 3131 consecutive patients (67 ± 13 years; 82% male) hospitalized for cardiovascular disease and measured ABI between January 2005 and December 2012. After excluding patients with an ABI > 1.4, the remaining 3056 patients were categorized as having low ABI (≤ 0.9), borderline ABI (0.91–0.99), or normal ABI (1.00–1.40). The primary endpoint was MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction [MI] and stroke). The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, admission due to heart failure, and major bleeding.

Results

During a 4.8-year mean follow-up period, the incidences of MACE (low vs. borderline vs. normal: 32.9% vs. 25.0% vs. 14.6%, P<0.0001) and cardiovascular death (26.2% vs. 18.7% vs. 8.9%, P<0.0001) differed significantly across ABIs. The incidences of stroke (9.1% vs. 8.6% vs. 4.8%, P<0.0001) and heart failure (25.7% vs. 20.8% vs. 8.9%, P<0.0001) were significantly higher in the low and borderline ABI groups than in the normal ABI group. But the incidences of MI and major bleeding were similar in the borderline and normal ABI groups. The hazard ratios for MACE adjusted for traditional atherosclerosis risk factors were significantly higher in patients with low and borderline ABI than those with normal ABI (HR, 1.93; 95%CI: 1.44–2.59, P < 0.0001, HR, 1.54; 95% CI: 1.03–2.29, P = 0.035).

Conclusions

The incidence of long-term adverse events was markedly higher among patients with low or borderline ABI than among those with normal ABI. This suggests that more attention should be paid to patients with borderline ABIs, especially with regard to cardiovascular death, stroke, and heart failure.