CJASN
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published ahead of print on May 30, 2007
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
© 2007 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.2215/CJN.00420107
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
CJN.00420107v1
2/4/688    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lenga, I.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lenga, I.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, M.

Received January 24, 2007
Accepted on April 25, 2007

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Role of Oral Iron in the Management of Long-Term Hemodialysis Patients

Ilan Lenga *, Charmaine Lok {dagger}, Rosa Marticorena {ddagger}, Joyce Hunter {ddagger}, Niki Dacouris {ddagger}, and Marc Goldstein {ddagger}1

*Lakeridge Health Corporation, Oshawa, and {dagger}University Health Network and {ddagger}Division of Nephrology, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: marc.goldstein{at}utoronto.ca.


   Abstract

The literature contends that oral iron supplementation is relatively ineffective in patients who are on long-term hemodialysis (HD), and intravenous iron is the superior form of supplementation. Data were prospectively abstracted from a cross-sectional cohort of all patients in the long-term in-center HD program at St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) from April 1, 2003, to April 1, 2004. Laboratory data were measured monthly. SMH data were compared with those in eight other centers in the Toronto Region Dialysis Registry. A total of 93% of the 151 patients tolerated oral iron. Eighty-eight (58%) patients received oral iron exclusively, and 60 (40%) patients received intravenous iron with or without oral iron. Of the patients who received oral iron exclusively, 73% maintained a hemoglobin of ≥110 g/L and 93% maintained a hemoglobin of ≥100 g/L. A total of 74% had an iron saturation ≥20%, and 36% had a ferritin level >100 g/L. Among the patients who were on oral iron alone and had hemoglobin of ≥110 g/L, the same amount of erythropoietin was used regardless of ferritin levels (P = 0.17), but less erythropoietin was used when they reached the target for either iron saturation or both iron indices (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). Among the centers in the Toronto Region Dialysis Registry, hemoglobin levels and erythropoietin dosages did not differ among the three centers that predominantly used oral iron versus the six centers that predominantly use intravenous iron (P = 0.46 and 0.95, respectively). Oral iron is a well-tolerated and effective form of iron supplementation in long-term HD patients.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CJASNHome page
R. Agarwal, J. L. Davis, and L. Smith
Serum Albumin Is Strongly Associated with Erythropoietin Sensitivity in Hemodialysis Patients
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2008; 3(1): 98 - 104.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Nephrology.