Spirometry parameters in patients undergoing hemodialysis with bicarbonate and acetate dialysates.

INTRODUCTION: End-stage renal disease causes impairment of all body organs including the heart and the lung. The main problems in the afflicted patients are pulmonary edema due to increased permeability of the capillaries, intravascular and interstitial volume overload, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. These changes cause altered physiologic and mechanical function of the lungs and subsequently increase in airway resistance. We aimed to study the impact of hemodialysis on spirometry parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study performed on 41 patients on maintenance hemodialysis, spirometry was done before and after the dialysis session. The patients were on either acetate or bicarbonate hemodialysis with the same method, dialysis machine, and duration of dialysis. Alterations in spirometry parameters including forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio, and maximal midexpiratory flow rate were determined and their relation with serum electrolytes, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and hemoglobin were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients undergoing dialysis with bicarbonate dialysate and 21 on dialysis with acetate were compared. Improvement in spirometry parameters was only significant in patients undergoing dialysis with bicarbonate dialysate. All spirometry parameters showed significant increases in the bicarbonate group except for the FEV1/FVC ratio. Furthermore, significant increase in these parameters was only prominent in the men. Postdialysis weight reduction and laboratory indexes had no significant correlation with improvement of spirometry parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis with bicarbonate dialysate causes significant improvement in spirometry parameters in men on maintenance dialysis. This effect might be independent of the effect of removing the volume overload by dialysis.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the role of formoterol in the management of acute asthma.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of formoterol delivered by Aerolizer in the emergency department. METHODS: A single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was conducted in patients seeking emergent care for an acute exacerbation of asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1 (salbutamol), receiving a total dose of 600 microg salbutamol (200+200+200) delivered by a meter-dose inhaler into a spacer device as two puffs at 20 min intervals; and group 2 (formoterol), receiving formoterol 24 microg (12+12) as two dry powder capsules each containing 12 microg of formoterol via Aerolizer at 20 min intervals. The peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was measured at baseline and 5 min after the second and third doses. RESULTS: 60 subjects receiving salbutamol (n = 28) or formoterol (n = 32) completed the study. Age, gender, baseline PEFR, duration of asthma and previous medication were balanced between the two groups. Mean PEFR increased significantly over baseline values in both the salbutamol and formoterol groups (63% in the salbutamol group, p = 0.001, and 55% in the formoterol group, p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the increase in PEFR between the groups (p = 0.99, 95% CI -29.62 to 29.59). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Formoterol was found to be well tolerated and as effective as salbutamol in the management of acute asthma. Further studies are needed to follow the patients after discharge from the emergency room to compare the long-term effect of formoterol on patients' stability.