The findings of this study revealed that PAH was present in 37.2% of the HD patients. This finding was in line with the results of previous studies in different regions (
12-
16). One possible reason for the discrepancy in observations might be the difference in the cut off value for PAP to detect PAH. In a study in Iran among 62 HD patients, the prevalence of PAH was reported 62.3% based on a similar PAP cut off used in our study (
17). However, the reported prevalence of PAH was higher than the observed prevalence of PAH in our study. One reason for this difference might be the difference in the age of the subjects as our patients were younger than the mentioned study.
This study also found that the most prevalent cause of CKD was unknown, followed by hypertension, proteinuria, and diabetes mellitus. This finding was in contrast to the findings of a previous study in the same province that reported hypertension and diabetes as the most common etiologies of CKD in 2404 HD patients (
18). Similarly, in a study of 633 HD patients in Shiraz, hypertension, and diabetes were reported as the most common causes of CKD (
19). The reason for this difference might be due to the larger sample size in the mentioned study. As our study was not designed to determine the prevalence of CKD etiologies, the shortcoming of our study in determining the prevalence of the etiology of CKD was not a limitation. On the other hand, this finding might affect the generalizability of the findings of this study to the whole HD population.
The findings of this study revealed that the prevalence of PAH was higher among hyperparathyroidism patients than those with normal parathyroid function. This study also showed a significant relationship between PAH and PTH levels. In a study of HD patients, PTH was significantly lower in patients with PAH and vascular calcification (
16). Our study results were in contrast with the findings of recent studies (
11,
15,
20). In a study among 77 HD patients in Turkey, no significant relationship was observed between serum PTH level and PAH (
15). In another study of 119 HD patients in Brazil, no significant relationship was observed between PTH and PAH (
20). In our previous study among 30 HD patients, no statistically significant relationship was observed between PTH and PAH (
11). In another study of 69 HD patients, no significant relationship was found between PAH and PTH (
17). Although these findings were in contrast to the present findings, in two studies that assessed arterial calcification, a significantly higher calcification was observed in patients with PAH regardless of the lack of a relationship between PAH and PTH levels (
17,
21).
One of the limitations of this study was relying on serum markers for PAH. Future studies should focus on other possible indicators of PAH, including vascular calcification or stiffness. Studies with larger sample sizes and using a unified cut off for the detection of PAH are needed to better identify the relationship between PAH and PTH. Another limitation of this study was the inclusion of young HD patients in the study. As patient age might affect PAP and regarding the fact that chronicity of dialysis might also affect PTH, further studies with stratified sampling are required to assess the relationship between PAH and PTH in different age groups. The strength of this study was its sample size, which was larger than most published papers.