Metabolic and Hemodynamic Advantages of an Acetate-Free Citrate Dialysate in a Uremic Case of Congenital Methylmalonic Acidemia

The effect of citrate dialysate on intradialytic heparin dose in haemodialysis patients: study design of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Unfractionated heparin is the most common anticoagulant used in haemodialysis (HD), although it has many potential adverse effects. Citrate dialysate (CD) has an anticoagulant effect which may allow reduction in cumulative heparin dose (CHD) compared to standard acetate dialysate (AD).

Methods

This double-blinded, randomised, cross-over trial of chronic haemodialysis patients determines if CD allows reduction in CHD during HD compared with AD. After enrolment, intradialytic heparin is minimised during a two-week run-in period using a standardised protocol based on a visual clotting score. Patients still requiring intradialytic heparin after the run-in period are randomised to two weeks of HD with AD followed by two weeks of CD (Sequence 1) or two weeks of HD with CD followed by two weeks of AD (Sequence 2). The primary outcome is the change in CHD with CD compared with AD. Secondary outcomes include metabolic and haemodynamic parameters, and dialysis adequacy.

Discussion

This randomised controlled trial will determine the impact of CD compared with AD on CHD during HD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01466959

Acute intradialytic cardiac function and inflammatory cytokine changes during high-efficiency online hemodiafiltration with acetate-free and standard dialysis solutions

Acetate in standard acetate-containing bicarbonate (AC) dialysis fluid could induce peripheral vasodilatation, suppression of myocardial function, and inflammatory cytokine production, resulting in intradialytic hypotension in conventional hemodialysis (HD) patients. Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides superior hemodynamic stability over HD. The potentially additive hemodynamic benefits of the novel acetate-free bicarbonate (AF) dialysis fluid in online HDF have never been explored before. The present randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted in 22 online HDF patients to investigate the impact of AF dialysis fluid on hemodynamic and cytokine changes compared with AC dialysis fluid in online HDF. The results demonstrated the comparable changes of arterial pressure between AF and AC online HDF. During the study periods, the incidences of composite intradialytic hypotension and other adverse events were not different. The baseline and hourly changes of cardiac index, cardiac output, and peripheral vascular resistance during dialysis were comparable (P=0.534, 0.199, and 0.641, respectively). The percent reductions of NT-proBNP and cTnT were not significantly different (72.6 ± 12.3 vs. 72.6 ± 12.8%, P=0.99 and 35.2 ± 12.8 vs. 36.7 ± 12.0%, P=0.51). The changes of all pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-2β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α) and anti-inflammatory cytokine (IL-10) during dialysis were comparable between both groups. In conclusion, AF dialysis solution does not offer additional hemodynamic benefit for stable online HDF patients. The hemodynamic stability provided by online HDF might protect the adverse effects of acetate.

Comparison of sustained hemodiafiltration with acetate-free dialysate and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration for the treatment of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare conventional continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) with sustained hemodiafiltration (SHDF) using an acetate-free dialysate. Fifty critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who required renal replacement therapy were treated with either CVVHDF or SHDF. CVVDHF was performed using a conventional dialysate with an effluent rate of 25 mL·kg⁻¹ · ^h−1, and SHDF was performed using an acetate-free dialysate with a flow rate of 300−500 mL/min. The primary study outcome, 30 d survival rate was 76.0% in the CVVHDF arm and 88.0% in the SHDF arm (NS). Both the number of patients who showed renal recovery (40.0% and 68.0%, CVVHDF and SHDF, resp.; P < .05), and the hospital stay length (42.3 days and 33.7 days, CVVHDF and SHDF, resp.; P < .05), significantly differed between the two treatments. Although the total convective volumes did not significantly differ, the dialysate flow rate was higher and mean duration of daily treatment was shorter in the SHDF treatment arm. Our results suggest that compared with conventional CVVHDF, more intensive renal support in the form of post-dilution SHDF with acetate-free dialysate may accelerate renal recovery in critically ill patients with AKI.