Insulin-induced lypodistrophy in hemodialyzed patients: A new challenge for nephrologists?

Evaluation of Some Chemical Parameters of Hemodialysis Water: A Case Study in Iran

BACKGROUND

One of the most common diseases in the world is kidney failure, which can lead to the death of patients. Hemodialysis is a treatment for patients whose kidneys are failing. The water used to perform dialysis must be healthy, safe, and clean. This study aimed to investigate the concentration of heavy metals in hemodialysis water in one of the Hospitals in Iran and compare it with European Pharmacopeia (EPH) and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standards.

METHODS

The present study is a descriptive-analytical study conducted on the inlet water of hemodialysis machines in hospital. The samples were collected for 3 months from June to September 2021, Which was examined in terms of free residual chlorine, electrical conductivity, pH, and calcium, magnesium, sodium, aluminum, zinc, copper, and lead concentration. Metals concentration in hemodialysis water was measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) technique.

RESULTS

The average value of parameters such as electrical conductivity, pH, residual free chlorine, sodium, calcium, magnesium, zinc, copper and lead in the hemodialysis water was less than the AAMI and EPH standards limits. There was a significant difference at the 95% confidence level with the standard limits, but the aluminum concentration was higher than the standard limits. Also, by examining the medical files of dialysis patients, the most observed problems were anemia and bone diseases, which are probably caused by exposure to high concentrations of aluminum in hemodialysis water.

CONCLUSION

In present study the aluminum concentration is higher than the standard limits. Considering that the higher aluminum concentration can cause diseases such as anemia, bone diseases, nervous deterioration, and death in hemodialysis patients, therefore, it is recommended to continuously evaluate and monitor the quality of hemodialysis water and the performance of its treatment system.

Flash Glucose Monitoring to Assess Glycemic Control and Variability in Hemodialysis Patients: The GIOTTO Study

Background: Flash glucose monitoring (FGM) is a technology with considerable differences compared to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), but it has been scarcely studied in hemodialysis patients. Thus, we aimed assessing the performance of FGM in such patients by comparison to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). We will also focus on estimation of glycemic control and variability, and their relationships with parameters of glucose homeostasis.

Methods: Thirty-one patients (20 with type 2 diabetes, T2DM, 11 diabetes-free, NODM) collected readings by FGM and SMBG for about 12 days on average. Readings by FGM and SMBG were compared by linear regression, Clarke error grid, and Bland-Altman analyses. Several indices of glycemic control and variability were computed. Ten patients also underwent oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for assessment of insulin sensitivity/resistance and insulin secretion/beta-cell function.

Results: Flash glucose monitoring and SMBG readings showed very good agreement in both T2DM and NODM (on average, 97 and 99% of readings during hemodialysis in A+B Clarke regions, respectively). Some glycemic control and variability indices were similar by FGM and SMBG (p = 0.06–0.9), whereas others were different (p = 0.0001–0.03). The majority of control and variability indices were higher in T2DM than in NODM, according to both FGM and SMBG (p = 0.0005–0.03). OGTT-based insulin secretion was inversely related to some variability indices according to FGM (R < −0.72, p < 0.02).

Conclusions: Based on our dataset, FGM appeared acceptable for glucose monitoring in hemodialysis patients, though partial disagreement with SMBG in glycemic control/variability assessment needs further investigations.