Hemodialysis Ultrafiltration Rate Targets Should Be Scaled to Body Surface Area Rather than to Body Weight

The association between higher ultrafiltration rates and poor outcomes in hemodialysis patients has received increased attention, to the point that various regulatory entities are considering adding ultrafiltration rate as a quality measure to be monitored and controlled. Most of the discussion to date has focused on ultrafiltration rate scaled to body weight, or more correctly, body mass (ml/hour per kg). One outcome study suggests that ultrafiltration rate might best be not scaled at all to body size, as modestly higher ultrafiltration rate in very small-size patients may be associated with some survival benefit, probably via increased dietary intake. Outcomes studies also suggest that the risk of exceeding a weight-scaled ultrafiltration target may be magnified in very large patients, and that body weight-scaled ultrafiltration targets in such patients should be set a lower level. Here, we present an analysis, based on physiological hemodynamic arguments, that it would be better to scale ultrafiltration rate to body surface area rather than to body mass. Whatever ultrafiltration rate is scaled to, attempts to restrict ultrafiltration rate by limiting interdialytic weight gain in small, possibly malnourished patients, should be done cautiously, to prevent an inadvertent lowering of intake of calories and dietary protein.

Renal Replacement Therapy and Incremental Hemodialysis for Veterans with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Each year approximately 13,000 Veterans transition to maintenance dialysis, mostly in the traditional form of thrice-weekly hemodialysis from the start. Among >6000 dialysis units nationwide, there are currently approximately 70 Veterans Affairs (VA) dialysis centers. Given this number of VA dialysis centers and their limited capacity, only 10% of all incident dialysis Veterans initiate treatment in a VA center. Evidence suggests that, among Veterans, the receipt of care within the VA system is associated with favorable outcomes, potentially because of the enhanced access to healthcare resources. Data from the United States Renal Data System Special Study Center "Transition-of-Care-in-CKD" suggest that Veterans who receive dialysis in a VA unit exhibit greater survival compared with the non-VA centers. Substantial financial expenditures arise from the high volume of outsourced care and higher dialysis reimbursement paid by the VA than by Medicare to outsourced providers. Given the exceedingly high mortality and abrupt decline in residual kidney function (RKF) in the first dialysis year, it is possible that incremental transition to dialysis through an initial twice-weekly hemodialysis regimen might preserve RKF, prolong vascular access longevity, improve patients' quality of life, and be a more patient-centered approach, more consistent with "personalized" dialysis. Broad implementation of incremental dialysis might also result in more Veterans receiving care within a VA dialysis unit. Controlled trials are needed to examine the safety and efficacy of incremental hemodialysis in Veterans and other populations; the administrative and health care as well as provider structure within the VA system would facilitate the performance of such trials.

Hemodialysis Treatment Time: As Important as it Seems?

Hemodialysis treatment time and Kt/V can both be considered to be primary measures of hemodialysis adequacy, because when either goes to zero, mortality is certain in patients without residual kidney function. Treatment time is important, but it needs to be adjusted based on surface-area-normalized Kt/V, residual kidney function, and expected ultrafiltration rate. Rescaling dose of dialysis measured as Kt/V to body surface area prevents ultrashort dialysis in small patients, women, and children with minimal residual kidney function. Most if not all of the observational studies of associations between outcome and dialysis session length are probably confounded by dose targeting bias. Once adequate Kt/V (taking into account body surface area) has been provided, adequate dialysis time probably is most relevant in terms of limiting the need for a high fluid removal rate. The latter may adversely impact survival by causing recurrent ischemia to cardiovascular and other tissues. There is little high-quality evidence at this time to support a minimum 4-hour treatment time for all patients, regardless of body size, solute removal, or residual kidney function. On the other hand, there is little evidence that prolonging weekly treatment time up to 24 hours per week is harmful. The final decision regarding treatment time is best individualized, based on patient acceptability and experience, residual kidney function, body surface-area-normalized Kt/V, and expected ultrafiltration rate.

The Effect of Increased Frequency of Hemodialysis on Volume-Related Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Trials

In previous reports of the Frequent Hemodialysis Network trials, frequent hemodialysis (HD) reduced extracellular fluid (ECF) and left ventricular mass (LVM), with more pronounced effects observed among patients with low urine volume (UVol). We analyzed the effect of frequent HD on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and a time-integrated estimate of ECF load (TIFL). We also explored whether volume and sodium loading contributed to the change in LVM over the study period. Treatment effects on volume parameters were analyzed for modification by UVol and the dialysate-to-serum sodium gradient. Predictors of change in LVM were determined using linear regression. Frequent HD reduced IDWG and TIFL in the Daily Trial. Among patients with UVol <100 ml/day, reduction in TIFL was associated with LVM reduction. This suggests that achievement of better volume control could attenuate changes in LVM associated with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. TIFL may prove more useful than IDWG alone in guiding HD practice. Video Journal Club ‘Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco' at http://www.karger.com/?doi=441966.

Teaching renal physiology in the 21st century: focus on acid-base physiology

A thorough understanding of renal physiology, and in particular acid–base physiology, is essential for an understanding of nephrology. Difficulties in both teaching and learning this material are major impediments to attracting medical trainees into nephrology. Approaches to teaching renal physiology include collaborative learning, computer-based learning and laboratory-based learning. Computer-based learning applications are becoming increasingly popular and can be useful, but are most successful when they incorporate interactive components. Students also note that the presence of a live instructor remains desirable. Some concepts of renal and in particular acid–base physiology can be taught using structured self-experimentation, a practice with a long tradition that possibly should be revitalized.

Long-Term Effects of Frequent In-Center Hemodialysis

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial randomized 245 patients to receive six (frequent) or three (conventional) in-center hemodialysis sessions per week for 12 months. As reported previously, frequent in-center hemodialysis yielded favorable effects on the coprimary composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in self-reported physical health. Here, we determined the long-term effects of the 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention. We determined the vital status of patients over a median of 3.6 years (10%-90% range, 1.5-5.3 years) after randomization. Using an intention to treat analysis, we compared the mortality hazard in randomized groups. In a subset of patients from both groups, we reassessed left ventricular mass and self-reported physical health a year or more after completion of the intervention; 20 of 125 patients (16%) randomized to frequent hemodialysis died during the combined trial and post-trial observation periods in contrast to 34 of 120 patients (28%) randomized to conventional hemodialysis. The relative mortality hazard for frequent versus conventional hemodialysis was 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.93); with censoring of time after kidney transplantation, the relative hazard was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.99). Bayesian analysis suggested a relatively high probability of clinically significant benefit and a very low probability of harm with frequent hemodialysis. In conclusion, a 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention significantly reduced long-term mortality, suggesting that frequent hemodialysis may benefit selected patients with ESRD.

Removal of Phosphorus by Hemodialysis

The control of serum phosphorus by dialysis is made difficult by the fact that intradialytic blood levels tend to be low, and because phosphorus is removed almost exclusively from the plasma during its passage through the dialyzer. The most practical way to increase phosphorus removal is to extend dialysis time, although attention to dialysis efficiency (surface area, advanced membrane, and higher blood and dialysate flow rates) also plays a role. Benefits of hemodiafiltration in helping control serum phosphorus have been claimed, but not found in all studies. Because serum phosphorus levels tend to plateau during the later parts of a dialysis session, extending weekly dialysis time is of greater benefit for phosphorus removal than for urea removal. Increasing dialysis frequency also probably has a small benefit. It appears that 18-30 hours of dialysis per week are required to obviate the need for phosphorus binders. Several promising models of phosphorus kinetics are under development. These may help predict the change in treatment on serum phosphorus levels, but their ability to do so has not yet been critically assessed.

Kt/V (and especially its modifications) remains a useful measure of hemodialysis dose

Removal of small molecular weight solutes shows a strong relationship to hemodialysis outcomes. In contrast, survival with high-flux dialysis or hemodiafiltration is only slightly better than with low-flux hemodialysis. Despite laboratory evidence regarding toxicity of protein-bound uremic solutes, few data exist showing that increased removal of this class of molecules impacts outcomes. In the FHN trials, there was no effect of frequent dialysis, including frequent and long dialysis, on nutrition or control of anemia, outcomes expected to be sensitive to uremic toxin removal; the main benefit appeared to be better volume control. Scaling of hemodialysis dose to total body water may not be optimal. Kt/V scaling to body surface area and use of a continuous measure such as standard Kt/V reduces the likelihood of underdialysis of small patients, including children, and women. Minimum hemodialysis time may best be considered in respect to ultrafiltration rate, and a maximum target ultrafiltration rate unscaled to body size may be optimal. Intensive, extended dialysis may cause adverse effects to residual kidney function, and more information needs to be collected to better understand how urine volume modifies dose requirements, and how to maximize the chances of preserving residual kidney function.

Long-term Effects of Frequent Nocturnal Hemodialysis on Mortality: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial

BACKGROUND

Few data are available regarding the long-term mortality rate for patients receiving nocturnal home hemodialysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Posttrial observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial participants who consented to extended follow-up.

INTERVENTION

The FHN Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 individuals to 6-times-weekly home nocturnal hemodialysis or 3-times-weekly hemodialysis for 1 year. Patients were enrolled starting in March 2006 and follow-up was completed by May 2010. After the 1-year trial concluded, FHN Nocturnal participants were free to modify their hemodialysis prescription.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

We obtained dates of death and kidney transplantation through July 2011 using linkage to the US Renal Data System and queries of study centers. We used log-rank tests and Cox regression to relate mortality to the initial randomization assignment.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for the trial and posttrial observational period was 3.7 years. In the nocturnal arm, there were 2 deaths during the 12-month trial period and an additional 12 deaths during the extended follow-up. In the conventional arm, the numbers of deaths were 1 and 4, respectively. In the nocturnal dialysis group, the overall mortality HR was 3.88 (95% CI, 1.27-11.79; P=0.01). Using as-treated analysis with a 12-month running treatment average, the HR for mortality was 3.06 (95% CI, 1.11-8.43; P=0.03). Six-month running treatment data analysis showed an HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-3.22; P=0.7).

LIMITATIONS

These results should be interpreted cautiously due to a surprisingly low (0.03 deaths/patient-year) mortality rate for individuals randomly assigned to conventional home hemodialysis, low statistical power for the mortality comparison due to the small sample size, and the high rate of hemodialysis prescription changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients randomly assigned to nocturnal hemodialysis had a higher mortality rate than those randomly assigned to conventional dialysis. The implications of this result require further investigation.

Dialysis dosing for chronic hemodialysis: beyond Kt/V

Current views regarding hemodialysis adequacy reach beyond indices of small solute removal such as Kt/V. Nevertheless, new Kt/V-based constructs such as the standard Kt/V, which adjusts not only for dialysis frequency, but which also represents removal of sequestered solutes rather than easily removed urea, continue to be useful. The scaling of dialysis dose to measures of size other than body water results in higher recommended doses of dialysis for children, small patients, and women, compared with the current body water-based scaling approach. Aside from small solute removal, increasing weekly time on dialysis results in slower removal of fluid with better tolerance and with increased removal of phosphorus, although both salt and water and phosphorus control often respond to efforts to reduce intake. The intermediate term benefits of removing larger middle molecules such as beta-2-microglobulin appear to be modest, and the benefits of removal of protein-bound uremic toxins remain to be proved in controlled trials.