Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Hypertension Complicated by Refractory Heart Failure: An Analysis of Safety and Nursing Highlights

Abstract

Objective. This research is aimed at analyzing the safety profile and nursing highlights of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for hypertension (HT) complicated by refractory heart failure (RHF). Methods. Sixty-six HT + RHF patients admitted between March 2018 and December 2021 were enrolled and assigned to two groups: a CRRT group with 33 cases treated with CRRT and a control group with 33 cases intervened by routine treatment. The therapeutic effect and alterations of cardiac function (CF) indexes were observed in both cohorts. Besides, statistics were made in terms of serum B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-reactive protein (CRP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) concentrations, time of asthma relief, heart rate recovery (HRR), edema resolution, and hospitalization, as well as incidence of adverse reactions (ARs). Finally, pre- and posttreatment psychological quality and pain of both cohorts of subjects were assessed using the self-rating anxiety and depression scale (SAS and SDS) and visual analogue scale (VAS), respectively. Results. CRRT group exhibited higher overall response rate and better CF than control group ( P < 0.05 ), with lower BNP, CRP, and MAP levels, and shorter time of asthma relief, HRR, edema resolution, and hospitalization ( P < 0.05 ); the incidence of ARs was similar ( P > 0.05 ); for both groups, the scores of SAS, SDS, and VAS reduced statistically after treatment ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. CRRT can effectively improve the therapeutic effect and CF of patients with HT complicated by RHF, to protect the health and safety of patients.

Retracted: Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy for Hypertension Complicated by Refractory Heart Failure: An Analysis of Safety and Nursing Highlights

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”