Effect of Low Versus High Dialysate Sodium Concentration on Blood Pressure and Endothelial-Derived Vasoregulators During Hemodialysis: A Randomized Crossover Study

Dialysate Sodium Levels, Ambulatory Aortic Blood Pressure, and Arterial Stiffness in Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Increased aortic blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness are associated with higher cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis. Previous works showed that lower dialysate sodium is associated with lower brachial-BP; data on aortic-BP and arterial stiffness are limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different dialysate sodium concentrations on 72-hour aortic-BP and arterial stiffness parameters in hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

This analysis is part of a prospective, non-randomized interventional study. Twenty-five hemodialysis patients underwent a set of 3 periods of different dialysate sodium concentrations; 6 sessions with dialysate sodium of 137 mEq/l, followed consecutively by 6 sessions with 139 mEq/l and, finally, 6 sessions with 141 mEq/l. At the start of the sixth hemodialysis session on each sodium concentration, 72-hour ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph) was performed to evaluate aortic-BP and arterial stiffness indices during the overall 72-hour, different 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime periods.

RESULTS

Mean 72-hour aortic systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were higher with increasing dialysate sodium concentrations (137 mEq/l: 114.2 ± 15.3/77.0 ± 11.8 mm Hg vs. 139 mEq/l: 115.4 ± 17.3/77.9 ± 14.0 mm Hg vs. 141 mEq/l: 120.5 ± 18.4/80.5 ± 14.7 mm Hg, P = 0.002/P = 0.057, respectively). Wave-reflection parameters (AIx, AIx(75), AP) were not significantly different between the 3 dialysate sodium concentrations. Ambulatory pulse wave velocity (PWV) was significantly higher with increasing dialysate sodium concentrations (137 mEq/l: 8.5 ± 1.7 m/s vs. 139 mEq/l: 8.6 ± 1.6 m/s vs. 141 mEq/l: 8.8 ± 1.6 m/s, P < 0.001). In generalized linear mixed models including 72-hour brachial SBP as a random covariate, the adjusted marginal means of 72-hour PWV were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that higher dialysate sodium concentrations are associated with significant increases in ambulatory aortic BP and PWV. These findings further support the need for modification of dialysate sodium concentration in hemodialysis.

Intradialytic Hypertension in Maintenance Hemodialysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current evidence regarding epidemiology, clinical pathophysiology, and latest therapeutic approaches for the management of intradialytic hypertension (IDH).

RECENT FINDINGS

IDH is a rather common complication of dialysis, affecting 10-15% of the patient population and significantly increasing the cardiovascular risk. Its pathophysiology involves multiple mechanisms, including volume and sodium overload, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) overactivity, endothelial dysfunction, and arterial stiffness. IDH management requires a combination of nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions. The first mainly focus on volume control through dry weight optimization and modification of dialysate sodium, as studies show that strict volume control or low dialysate sodium can significantly reduce intradialytic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Pharmacological interventions have also been examined in research studies. Beta-blockers, particularly those with vasodilatory properties, can effectively target mechanisms such as SNS overactivity and endothelial dysfunction, and have shown some promising results reducing both intradialytic and ambulatory BP. Other drugs classes have also been explored as potential therapeutic options for IDH management, though further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of these interventions. A tailored approach addressing both the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and individualized patient is warranted for improving BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in this high-risk population.

Low dialysate sodium levels for chronic haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death in dialysis patients and is strongly associated with fluid overload and hypertension. It is plausible that low dialysate sodium ion concentration [Na+] may decrease total body sodium content, thereby reducing fluid overload and hypertension and ultimately reducing CV morbidity and death. This is an update of a review first published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

This review evaluated the harms and benefits of using a low (< 138 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 October 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both parallel and cross-over, of low (< 138 mM) versus neutral (138 to 140 mM) or high (> 140 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance HD patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model, and results expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies randomising 509 patients, with data available for 452 patients after dropouts. All but three studies evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], with one using profiled dialysate [Na+] and two using individualised dialysate [Na+]. Five were parallel group studies, and 12 were cross-over studies. Of the latter, only six used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4 (4 to 16) weeks. Two were of a single HD session and two of a single week's HD. Seven studies were conducted prior to 2000, and six reported the use of obsolete HD practices. Other than for indirectness arising from older studies, risks of bias in the included studies were generally low. Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+] (≥ 138 mM), low dialysate [Na+] (< 138 mM) reduces interdialytic weight gain (14 studies, 515 participants: MD -0.36 kg, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.22; high certainty evidence) and antihypertensive medication use (5 studies, 241 participants: SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.1; high certainty evidence), and probably reduces left ventricular mass index (2 studies, 143 participants: MD -7.65 g/m2, 95% CI -14.48 to -0.83; moderate certainty evidence), predialysis mean arterial pressure (MAP) (5 studies, 232 participants: MD -3.39 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.17 to -1.61; moderate certainty evidence), postdialysis MAP (5 studies, 226 participants: MD -3.17 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.68 to 1.67; moderate certainty evidence), predialysis serum [Na+] (11 studies, 435 participants: MD -1.26 mM, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.72; moderate certainty evidence) and postdialysis serum [Na+] (6 studies, 188 participants: MD -3.09 mM, 95% CI -4.29 to -1.88; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] probably increases intradialytic hypotension events (13 studies, 15,764 HD sessions: RR 1.58, 95% 1.25 to 2.01; moderate certainty evidence) and intradialytic cramps (10 studies, 14,559 HD sessions: RR 1.84, 95% 1.29 to 2.64; moderate certainty evidence). Effect size for important outcomes were generally greater with low dialysate [Na+] compared to high compared with neutral dialysate [Na+], although formal hypothesis testing identifies that the difference was only certain for postdialysis serum [Na+]. Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] affects intradialytic or interdialytic MAP, and dietary salt intake. It is also uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular volumes, or fatigue. Studies did not examine CV or all-cause death, CV events, or hospitalisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and probably blood pressure, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably increases intradialytic hypotension and probably reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with an increased risk of death. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs.

Dialysate sodium and short-term blood pressure variability in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized crossover study

Increased blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with high cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis. Patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH) also exhibit an increased cardiovascular risk compared to hemodialysis patients without this condition. The impact of non-pharmacological BP-lowering interventions on BPV in this population remains unknown. This analysis evaluated the effect of low (137mEq/L) compared to standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium concentration on short-term BPV in patients with IDH. In a randomized cross-over manner, 29 IDH patients underwent 4 hemodialysis sessions with low (137mEq/L) followed by 4 sessions with standard (140mEq/L) dialysate sodium or vice versa. 48 h ambulatory BP measurement was performed from the start of the 4th session on each dialysate sodium. BPV indices during the 48 h, 24 h, day-time and night-time periods were calculated. Mean 48 h BP was 5.3/2.6 mmHg lower with low compared to standard dialysate sodium concentration, (p = 0.005/p = 0.007 respectively). All 48 h systolic BPV indices examined showed non-significant differences between low and standard dialysate sodium (SBP-SD: 16.99 ± 5.39 vs. 16.98 ± 4.33 mmHg, p = 0.982; SBP-wSD: 15.93 ± 5.02 vs. 16.12 ± 4.16 mmHg, p = 0.769; SBP-ARV: 11.99 ± 3.67 vs. 11.45 ± 3.35 mmHg, p = 0.392; SBP-CV: 12.36 ± 3.65 vs. 11.92 ± 3.18%, p = 0.302, with low vs. standard dialysate sodium, respectively). Diastolic BPV indices were numerically, but not statistically, lower with low dialysate sodium. Overall, significant differences were observed in some comparisons with a trend for lower BPV during day-time 2 and higher BVP during night-time 2 with low dialysate sodium. In conclusion, low dialysate sodium concentration does not affect BPV levels in patients with IDH. Future research should explore alternative interventions to reduce BP and BPV in this high-risk population.

Low dialysate sodium and 48-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypertension (IDH) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality. Patients with IDH exhibit higher 48-h blood pressure (BP) levels than patients without this condition. Volume and sodium excess are considered a major factor contributing in the development of this phenomenon. This study evaluated the effect of low (137 mEq/L) compared with standard (140 mEq/L) dialysate sodium concentration on 48-h BP in patients with IDH.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, crossover study, 29 patients with IDH underwent four hemodialysis sessions with low (137 mEq/L) followed by four sessions with standard (140 mEq/L) dialysate sodium, or vice versa. Mean 48-h BP, pre-/post-dialysis and intradialytic BP, pre-dialysis weight, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and lung ultrasound B-lines were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean 48-h systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) were significantly lower with low compared with standard dialysate sodium concentration (137.6 ± 17.0/81.4 ± 13.7 mmHg with low vs 142.9 ± 14.5/84.0 ± 13.9 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P = .005/P = .007, respectively); SBP/DBP levels were also significantly lower during the 44-h and different 24-h periods. Low dialysate sodium significantly reduced post-dialysis (SBP/DBP: 150.3 ± 22.3/91.2 ± 15.1 mmHg with low vs 166.6 ± 17.3/94.5 ± 14.9 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P < .001/P = .134, respectively) and intradialytic (141.4 ± 18.0/85.0 ± 13.4 mmHg with low vs 147.5 ± 13.6/88.1 ± 12.5 mmHg with standard dialysate sodium, P = .034/P = .013, respectively) BP compared with standard dialysate sodium. Pre-dialysis weight, IDWG and pre-dialysis B lines were also significantly decreased with low dialysate sodium.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dialysate sodium concentration significantly reduced 48-h ambulatory BP compared with standard dialysate sodium in patients with IDH. These findings support low dialysate sodium as a major non-pharmacologic approach for BP management in patients with IDH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov study number NCT05430438.

The effect of different dialysate sodium concentrations on ambulatory blood pressure in hemodialysis patients: a prospective interventional study

Background

Hypertension is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients. Existing recommendations suggest reduction of sodium load, but the effect of dialysate sodium on blood pressure (BP) is not fully elucidated. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of different dialysate sodium concentrations on 72-h ambulatory BP in hemodialysis patients.

Methods

This prospective study included patients on standard thrice-weekly hemodialysis. All patients initially underwent six sessions with dialysate sodium concentration of 137 meq/L, followed consecutively by another six sessions with dialysate sodium of 139 meq/L and, finally, six sessions with dialysate sodium of 141 meq/L. At the start of the sixth hemodialysis session on each sodium concentration, 72-h ABPM was performed over the long interdialytic interval to evaluate ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) during the overall 72-h, different 24-h, daytime and night-time periods.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included in the final analysis. A significant increase in the mean 72-h SBP was observed with higher dialysate sodium concentrations (124.8 ± 16.6 mmHg with 137 meq/L vs 126.3 ± 17.5 mmHg with 139 meq/L vs 132.3 ± 19.31 mmHg with 141 meq/L, P = 0.002). Similar differences were noted for DBP; 72-h DBP was significantly higher with increasing dialysate sodium concentrations (75.1 ± 11.3 mmHg with 137 meq/L vs 76.3 ± 13.7 mmHg with 139 meq/L vs 79.5 ± 13.9 mmHg with 141 meq/L dialysate sodium, P = 0.01). Ambulatory BP during the different 24-h intervals, daytime and night-time periods was also progressively increasing with increasing dialysate sodium concentration.

Conclusion

This pilot study showed a progressive increase in ambulatory BP with higher dialysate sodium concentrations. These findings support that lower dialysate sodium concentration may help towards better BP control in hemodialysis patients.

Interdialytic weight gain and low dialysate sodium concentration in patients on chronic hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effect of low dialysate sodium concentration on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) in chronic hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were English language papers published in a peer-reviewed journal and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies in adult patients (over 18 years of age), (2) included patients on chronic hemodialysis since at least 6 months; (3) compared standard (138-140 mmol/l) or high (> 140 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration with low (< 138 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration; (4) Included one outcome of interest: interdialytic weight gain. Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the quality of reporting for each study was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool of Controlled Intervention Studies of the National Institutes of Health. The quality of reporting of each cross-over study was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for cross-over trials as proposed by Ding et al. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (710 patients) were included in the analysis: 15 were cross-over and 4 parallel randomized controlled studies. In cross-over studies, pooled analysis revealed that dialysate sodium concentration reduced IDWG with a pooled MD of - 0.40 kg (95% CI - 0.50 to - 0.30; p < 0.001). The systematic review of four parallel, randomized, studies revealed that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration was associated with a significant reduction of the IDWG in two studies, sustained and almost significant (p = 0.05) reduction in one study, and not significant reduction in one study.

CONCLUSION

Low dialysate sodium concentration reduces the IDWG in prevalent patients on chronic hemodialysis.

Modification of Dialysate Na+ Concentration but not Ultrafiltration or Dialysis Treatment Time Affects Tissue Na+ Deposition in Patients on Hemodialysis

Introduction

Tissue Na+ overload is present in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with cardiovascular mortality. Strategies to actively modify tissue Na+ amount in these patients by adjusting the HD regimen have not been evaluated.

Methods

In several substudies, including cross-sectional analyses (n = 75 patients on HD), a cohort study and a cross-over interventional study (n = 10 patients each), we assessed the impact of ultrafiltration (UF) volume, prolongation of dialysis treatment time, and modification of dialysate Na+ concentration on tissue Na+ content using 23Na magnetic resonance imaging (23Na-MRI).

Results

In the cross-sectional analysis of our patients on HD, differences in dialysate sodium concentration ([Na+]) were associated with changes in tissue Na+ content, whereas neither UF volume nor HD treatment time affected tissue Na+ amount. Skin Na+ content was lower in 17 patients on HD, with dialysate [Na+] of <138 mmol/l compared to 58 patients dialyzing at ≥138 mmol/l (20.7 ± 7.3 vs. 26.0 ± 8.8 arbitrary units [a.u.], P < 0.05). In the cohort study, intraindividual prolongation of HD treatment time was not associated with a reduction in tissue Na+ content. Corresponding to the observational data, intraindividual modification of dialysate [Na+] from 138 to 142 to 135 mmol/l resulted in concordant changes in skin Na+ (24.3 ± 7.6 vs. 26.3 ± 8.0 vs. 20.8 ± 5.6 a.u, P < 0.05 each), whereas no significant change in muscle Na+ occurred.

Conclusion

Solely adjustment of dialysate [Na+] had a reproducible impact on tissue Na+ content. 23Na-MRI could be utilized to monitor the effectiveness of dialysate [Na+] modifications in randomized-controlled outcome trials.

Real-time dual prediction of intradialytic hypotension and hypertension using an explainable deep learning model

Both intradialytic hypotension (IDH) and hypertension (IDHTN) are associated with poor outcomes in hemodialysis patients, but a model predicting dual outcomes in real-time has never been developed. Herein, we developed an explainable deep learning model with a sequence-to-sequence-based attention network to predict both of these events simultaneously. We retrieved 302,774 hemodialysis sessions from the electronic health records of 11,110 patients, and these sessions were split into training (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) datasets through patient randomization. The outcomes were defined when nadir systolic blood pressure (BP) < 90 mmHg (termed IDH-1), a decrease in systolic BP ≥ 20 mmHg and/or a decrease in mean arterial pressure ≥ 10 mmHg (termed IDH-2), or an increase in systolic BP ≥ 10 mmHg (i.e., IDHTN) occurred within 1 h. We developed a temporal fusion transformer (TFT)-based model and compared its performance in the test dataset, including receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curves (AUPRC), with those of other machine learning models, such as recurrent neural network, light gradient boosting machine, random forest, and logistic regression. Among all models, the TFT-based model achieved the highest AUROCs of 0.953 (0.952-0.954), 0.892 (0.891-0.893), and 0.889 (0.888-0.890) in predicting IDH-1, IDH-2, and IDHTN, respectively. The AUPRCs in the TFT-based model for these outcomes were higher than the other models. The factors that contributed the most to the prediction were age and previous session, which were time-invariant variables, as well as systolic BP and elapsed time, which were time-varying variables. The present TFT-based model predicts both IDH and IDHTN in real time and offers explainable variable importance.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Perspectives of Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Individuals with end-stage renal disease on chronic hemodialysis (HD) may encounter numerous HD-associated complications, including intradialytic hypertension (IDHYPER). Although blood pressure (BP) follows a predictable course in the post-HD period, BP levels during the session may vary across the individuals. Typically, a decline in BP is noted during HD, but a significant proportion of patients exhibit a paradoxical elevation.

SUMMARY

Several studies have been conducted to understand the complexity of IDHYPER, but much remains to be elucidated in the future. This review article aimed to present the current evidence regarding the proposed definitions, the pathophysiologic background, the extent and clinical implications of IDHYPER, as well as the possible therapeutic options that have emerged from clinical studies.

KEY MESSAGES

IDHYPER is noted in approximately 15% of individuals undergoing HD. Several definitions have been proposed, with a systolic BP rise >10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis in the hypertensive range in at least four out of six consecutive HD treatments being suggested by the latest Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. Concerning its pathophysiology, extracellular fluid overload is a crucial determinant, with endothelial dysfunction, sympathetic nervous system overdrive, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation, and electrolyte alterations being important contributors. Although its association with ambulatory BP in the interdialytic period is controversial, IDHYPER is associated with adverse cardiovascular events and mortality. Moving to its management, the antihypertensive drugs of choice should ideally be nondialyzable with proven cardiovascular and mortality benefits. Finally, rigorous clinical and objective assessment of extracellular fluid volume is essential. Volume-overloaded patients should be instructed about the importance of sodium restriction, while physicians ought to alter HD settings toward a greater dry weight reduction. The use of a low-sodium dialysate and isothermic HD could also be considered on a case-by-case basis since no randomized evidence is currently available.

Sodium flux during hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration treatment of acute kidney injury: Effects of dialysate and infusate sodium concentration at 140 and 145 mmol/L

BACKGROUND

A higher sodium (Na) dialysate concentration is recommended during renal replacement therapy (RRT) of acute kidney injury (AKI) to improve intradialytic hemodynamic tolerance, but it may lead to Na loading to the patient. We aimed to evaluate Na flux according to Na dialysate and infusate concentrations at 140 and 145 mmol/L during hemodialysis (HD) and hemodiafiltration (HDF).

METHODS

Fourteen AKI patients that underwent consecutive HD or HDF sessions with Na dialysate/infusate at 140 and 145 mmol/L were included. Per-dialytic flux of Na was estimated using mean sodium logarithmic concentration including diffusive and convective influx. We compared the flux of sodium between HD140 and 145, and between HDF140 and 145.

RESULTS

Nine HD140, ten HDF140, nine HD145, and 11 HDF145 sessions were analyzed. A Na gradient from the dialysate/replacement fluid to the patient was observed with dialysate/infusate Na at 145 mmol/L in both HD and HDF (p = 0.01). The comparison of HD145 to HD140 showed that higher Na dialysate induced a diffusive Na gradient to the patient (163 mmol vs. -25 mmol, p = 0.004) and that of HDF145 to -140 (211 vs. 36 mmol, p = 0.03) as well. Intradialytic hemodynamic tolerance was similar across all RRT sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

During both HD and HDF, a substantial Na loading occurred with a Na dialysate and infusate at 145 mmol/L. This Na loading is smaller in HDF with Na dialysate and infusate concentration at 140 mmol/L and inversed with HD140. Clinical and intradialytic hemodynamic tolerance was fair regardless of Na dialysate and infusate.

Management of intradialytic hypertension: current evidence and future perspectives

Intradialytic hypertension (IDH), that is, a paradoxical rise in blood pressure (BP) during or immediately after a hemodialysis session, affects approximately 10-15% of the hemodialysis population. It is currently recognized as a phenomenon of major clinical significance as recent studies have shown that BP elevation extends to the whole interdialytic interval and associates with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The pathophysiology of IDH is complex involving volume and sodium overload, endothelial dysfunction, excess renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system activation, and other mechanisms. For several years, there was a scarcity of studies regarding IDH treatment; recently, however, several attempts to examine the effect of nonpharmacological and pharmacological measures on BP levels in IDH are made. This review attempts to summarize this latest evidence in the field of management of IDH and discuss areas for future research.

Low dialysate sodium in children and young adults on maintenance hemodialysis: a prospective, randomized, crossover study

BACKGROUND

The optimal dialysate sodium concentration (dNa) in children on hemodialysis (HD) is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effect on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and blood pressure (BP) of a low (135 mmol/l) and standard dNa (138 mmol/l) in children and young adults on maintenance HD.

METHODS

This prospective single-blind randomized crossover study consisted of a randomized sequence of two phases: "standard dNa" of 138 mmol/L and "low dNa" of 135 mmol/L. Each phase lasted 4 weeks. Inclusion criteria were age < 25 years, hypertension, pre-HD serum Na (sNa) ≥ 130 mmol/L, and occurrence of symptoms in less than 25% of sessions. Primary outcomes were pre-HD systolic and diastolic BP and IDWG.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were recruited, mean age 17.8 ± 4.4 years. Pre-HD SBP and DBP were not different between the two treatments. Mean IDWG was significantly lower with low dNa than with standard dNa: 2.12 ± 1.39% vs. 2.77 ± 1.53%, respectively (p = 0.008). The first-hour refill index (a volume index based on blood-volume monitoring) was significantly lower with dNa 135 mmol/L (p = 0.018). The mean Na gradient (dNa-sNa) was - 2.53 ± 2.4 mmol/L with dNa 135 mmol/L and 0.17 ± 2.8 mmol/L with dNa 138 mmol/L (p = 0.0001). The incidence of symptomatic sessions was similar (1.0% vs. 1.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a selected population of hypertensive pediatric and young adult HD patients, a dNa of 135 mmol/L was associated with a significant reduction of IDWG compared with a dNa of 138 mmol/L. Furthermore, long-term studies are needed to investigate the effect of lowering dNa on BP. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Intradialytic hypertension: epidemiology and pathophysiology of a silent killer

The term intradialytic hypertension (IDH) describes a paradoxical rise in blood pressure (BP) during or immediately after the hemodialysis session. Although it was formerly considered a phenomenon without clinical implications, current evidence suggests that IDH may affect up to 15% of hemodialysis patients and exhibit independent associations with future cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, during the last decade, several studies have tried to elucidate the complex pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon. Volume overload, intradialytic sodium gain, overactivity of the sympathetic-nervous-system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, endothelial dysfunction and dialysis-related electrolyte disturbances have been proposed to be involved in the pathogenesis of the BP increase during hemodialysis. This review attempts to summarize existing evidence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of the distinct phenomenon of IDH.

Effect of low dialysate sodium in the management of intradialytic hypertension in maintenance hemodialysis patients: A single-center Indian experience

BACKGROUND

High dialysate sodium is a significant contributor to intradialytic hypertension (IDH) in maintenance hemodialysis patients. In this study, we aimed to study the effect of low dialysate sodium on IDH in Indian hemodialysis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients on maintenance hemodialysis for atleast 3 months with episodes of IDH were enrolled in this study. The study was performed in two different stages. In the first phase, patients were dialyzed with standard dialysate sodium (140 mEq/L) for eight consecutive sessions and in the second phase, they were dialyzed with low sodium dialysate (136 mEq/L) for eight consecutive sessions. Differences in pre, intradialytic, and post-HD blood pressure, interdialytic weight gain, mean serum sodium, intradialytic adverse events, and number of IDH episodes requiring intervention between the two phases were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 52 years (36 males,14 females). The mean post-HD systolic and diastolic BP was 163.26 ± 9.58 mmHg and 88.60 ± 5.27 mmHg in the standard dialysate phase and 142.38 ± 14.09 mmHg and 84.58 ± 4.276 mmHg, respectively, in the low dialysate phase (p < 0.01). Interdialytic weight gain was 3.34 ± 0.9 and 3.11 ± 0.86 in the standard and low sodium dialysate phases, respectively (p = 0.19).The mean pre-HD plasma sodium level was 138.48 ± 3.69 and 135.80 ± 1.35 mEq/dl, respectively, in standard and low dialysate phases (p = 0.01). There was significant reduction in number of IDH episodes requiring intervention. There was no difference in hypotensive episodes, adverse events between the two phases.

CONCLUSION

In patients with intradialytic hypertension, low dialysate sodium significantly reduces the post-HD blood pressure and intradialytic hypertensive episodes, when compared with standard sodium dialysate.

Management of acute intradialytic cardiovascular complications: Updated overview (Review)

An increasing number of patients require renal replacement therapy through dialysis and renal transplantation. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects a large percentage of the world's population and has evolved into a major public health concern. Diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure and a family history of kidney failure are all major risk factors for CKD. Patients in advanced stages of CKD have varying degrees of cardiovascular damage. Comorbidities of these patients, include, on the one hand, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia and, on the other hand, the presence of mineral-bone disorders associated with CKD and chronic inflammation, which contribute to cardiovascular involvement. Acute complications occur quite frequently during dialysis. Among these, the most important are cardiovascular complications, which influence the morbidity and mortality rates of this group of patients. Chronic hemodialysis patients manifest acute cardiovascular complications such as intradialytic hypotension, intradialytic hypertension, arrhythmias, acute coronary syndromes and sudden death. Thus, proper management is extremely important.

Treating Home Versus Predialysis Blood Pressure Among In-Center Hemodialysis Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have reported a U-shaped association between blood pressure (BP) before a hemodialysis session and death. In contrast, because a linear association between out-of-dialysis-unit BP and death has been reported, home BP may be a better target for treatment. To test the feasibility of this approach, we conducted a pilot trial of treating home versus predialysis BP in hemodialysis patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A 4-month, parallel, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

50 prevalent hemodialysis patients in San Francisco and Seattle. Participants were randomly assigned using 1:1 block randomization, stratified by site.

INTERVENTIONS

To target home systolic BP (SBP) of 100-<140 mm Hg versus predialysis SBP of 100-<140mm Hg. Home and predialysis SBPs were ascertained every 2 weeks. Dry weight and BP medications were adjusted to reach the target SBP.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were feasibility, adherence, safety. and tolerability.

RESULTS

50 of 70 (71%) patients who were approached agreed to participate. All enrollees completed the study except for 1 who received a kidney transplant. In the home BP treatment group, adherence to obtaining/reporting home BP was 97.4% (and consistent over the 4 months). There was no increased frequency of high (defined as SBP>200mm Hg; 0.2% vs 0%) or low (defined as<90mm Hg; 1.8% vs 1.2%) predialysis BP readings in the home versus predialysis treatment arms, respectively. However, participants in the home BP arm had higher frequency of fatigue (32% vs 16%).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial demonstrates feasibility and high adherence to home BP measurement and treatment in hemodialysis patients. Larger trials to test the long-term feasibility, efficacy, and safety of home BP treatment in hemodialysis patients should be conducted.

FUNDERS

National Institutes of Health, Satellite Healthcare, and Northwest Kidney Centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03459807.

The effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVES

Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

METHODS

This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a single drug-dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session.

RESULTS

In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a single dose of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P < 0.001/P = 0.001; irbesartan: 142.4 ± 16.4/85.1 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = 0.156/P = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in comparisons between the two drugs, with the exception of heart rate, being lower with nebivolol.

CONCLUSION

Both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced postdialysis and 24-h BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration had greater effect and nebivolol was numerically slightly more potent than irbesartan.

Serum Sodium and Pulse Pressure in SPRINT

BACKGROUND

High dietary sodium intake may induce a small, yet physiologically relevant rise in serum sodium concentration, which associates with increased systolic blood pressure. Cellular data suggest that this association is mediated by increased endothelial cell stiffness. We hypothesized that higher serum sodium levels were associated with greater arterial stiffness in participants in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

METHODS

Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between baseline serum sodium level and (i) pulse pressure (PP; n = 8,813; a surrogate measure of arterial stiffness) and (ii) carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (CFPWV; n = 591 in an ancillary study to SPRINT).

RESULTS

Baseline mean ± SD age was 68 ± 9 years and serum sodium level was 140 ± 2 mmol/L. In the PP analysis, higher serum sodium was associated with increased baseline PP in the fully adjusted model (tertile 3 [≥141 mmol] vs. tertile 2 [139-140 mmol]; β = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.43). Results were similar in those with and without chronic kidney disease. In the ancillary study, higher baseline serum sodium was not associated with increased baseline CFPWV in the fully adjusted model (β = 0.35, 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults at high risk for cardiovascular events but free from diabetes, higher serum sodium was independently associated with baseline arterial stiffness in SPRINT, as measured by PP, but not by CFPWV. These results suggest that high serum sodium may be a marker of risk for increased PP, a surrogate index of arterial stiffness.

Low dialysate sodium levels for chronic haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death in dialysis patients, and strongly associated with fluid overload and hypertension. It is plausible that low dialysate [Na+] may decrease total body sodium content, thereby reducing fluid overload and hypertension, and ultimately reducing CV morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

This review evaluated harms and benefits of using a low (< 138 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 August 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both parallel and cross-over, of low (< 138 mM) versus neutral (138 to 140 mM) or high (> 140 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance HD patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models, and results expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies randomising 310 patients, with data available for 266 patients after dropout. All but one study evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], and one profiled dialysate [Na+]. Three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine cross-over. Of the latter, only two used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3 (3, 8.5) weeks. Two were of a single HD session, and two of a single week's HD. Half of the studies were conducted prior to 2000, and five reported use of obsolete HD practices. Risks of bias in the included studies were often high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results.Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "efficacy" endpoints: reduced interdialytic weight gain (10 studies: MD -0.35 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.51; high certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis mean arterial blood pressure (BP) (4 studies: MD -3.58 mmHg, 95% CI -5.46 to -1.69; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced postdialysis mean arterial BP (MAP) (4 studies: MD -3.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.70 to -4.82; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis serum [Na+] (7 studies: MD -1.69 mM, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.02; moderate certainty evidence); may have reduced antihypertensive medication (2 studies: SMD -0.67 SD, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.28; low certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "safety" endpoints: probably increased intradialytic hypotension events (9 studies: RR 1.56, 95% 1.17 to 2.07; moderate certainty evidence); probably increased intradialytic cramps (6 studies: RR 1.77, 95% 1.15 to 2.73; moderate certainty evidence).Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] may make little or no difference to: intradialytic BP (2 studies: MD for systolic BP -3.99 mmHg, 95% CI -17.96 to 9.99; diastolic BP 1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -6.29 to 8.95; low certainty evidence); interdialytic BP (2 studies:, MD for systolic BP 0.17 mmHg, 95% CI -5.42 to 5.08; diastolic BP -2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to 0.84; low certainty evidence); dietary salt intake (2 studies: MD -0.21g/d, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.06; low certainty evidence).Due to very low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular mass or volumes, thirst or fatigue. Studies did not examine cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is likely that low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and BP, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably also increases intradialytic hypotension and reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with increased mortality risk. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs.

Effect of plasma sodium concentration on blood pressure regulators during hemodialysis: a randomized crossover study

Background

Intradialytic hypotension is a common complication of hemodialysis. The Hemocontrol biofeedback system, improving intradialytic hemodynamic stability, is associated with an initial transient increase in plasma sodium levels. Increases in sodium could affect blood pressure regulators.

Methods

We investigated whether Hemocontrol dialysis affects vasopressin and copeptin levels, endothelial function, and sympathetic activity in twenty-nine chronic hemodialysis patients. Each patient underwent one standard hemodialysis and one Hemocontrol hemodialysis. Plasma sodium, osmolality, nitrite and nitrate (NOx), endothelin-1, angiopoietins-1 and 2, and methemoglobin as measures of endothelial function, plasma catecholamines as indices of sympathetic activity and plasma vasopressin and copeptin levels were measured six times during each modality. Blood pressure, heart rate, blood volume, and heart rate variability were repeatedly monitored. Generalized Estimating Equations was used to compare the course of the parameters during the two treatment modalities.

Results

Plasma sodium and osmolality were significantly higher during the first two hours of Hemocontrol hemodialysis. Overall, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher during Hemocontrol dialysis. Neither the measures of endothelial function and sympathetic activity nor copeptin levels differed between the two dialysis modalities. In contrast, plasma vasopressin levels were significantly higher during the first half of Hemocontrol dialysis. The intradialytic course of vasopressin was associated with the course of MAP.

Conclusions

A transient intradialytic increase in plasma sodium did not affect indices of endothelial function or sympathetic activity compared with standard hemodialysis, but coincided with higher plasma vasopressin levels. The beneficial effect of higher intradialytic sodium levels on hemodynamic stability might be mediated by vasopressin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT03578510. Date of registration: July 5th, 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Impact of intradialytic blood pressure changes on cardiovascular outcomes is independent of the volume status of maintenance hemodialysis patients

Intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) changes are related to the volume status; however, whether SBP change impacts on adverse outcomes depends on the volume status remains uncertain. We retrospectively investigated the relationship among intradialytic changes in SBP, cardiovascular outcomes, and volume status in maintenance hemodialysis patients. We determined SBP changes (ΔSBP) as postdialysis SBP minus predialysis SBP and volume status as the ratio of extracellular water to total body water (ECW/TBW) using bioelectrical impedance analysis. There were 82 (60.3%) with ΔSBP -20 to 10 mm Hg, 21 (15.4%) with ΔSBP ≤ -20 mm Hg, and 33 (24.3%) with ΔSBP ≥ 10 mm Hg, and they were followed up for a median of 34 months. Cardiovascular events more frequently occurred in the patients with ΔSBP ≤ -20 mm Hg and ≥ 10 mm Hg (hazard ratio: 2.3 and 3.0; P = .062 and .006); these associations persisted even after adjusting for postdialysis ECW/TBW (P = .056 and .028). Moreover, ΔSBP ≥ 10 mm Hg was associated with increased cardiovascular mortalities independent of postdialysis ECW/TBW (P = .043). There was an independent association of volume status between considerable SBP decrease or increase during hemodialysis and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Besides appropriate volume control, other factors related to BP changes during hemodialysis must be investigated.

Association of Intradialytic Hypertension with Left Ventricular Mass in Hypertensive Hemodialysis Patients Enrolled in the Blood Pressure in Dialysis (BID) Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Intradialytic hypertension (IDH), or paradoxical rise in blood pressure (BP) during hemodialysis (HD) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The association between IDH and increased left ventricular mass (LVM), a well-known risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes in HD patients, has not been studied. The aim of our study is to evaluate the cross-sectional association of intradialytic change in BP with cardiac structure and function measured by cardiac MRI in hypertensive HD patients enrolled in the multi-center Blood Pressure in Dialysis (BID) clinical trial.

METHODS

Participants in the BID study were categorized into 3 groups based on average change (Δ) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (post-HD SBP minus pre-HD SBP) during HD over a 1 month period: group 1 - patients with an increase in SBP ≥ 10mm Hg during HD (IDH); group 2 -patients with SBP decrease of greater ≥10mm Hg during HD; group 3 - patients with SBP increase or decrease by < 10mm Hg during HD. LVM index (LVMI) was measured using cardiac MRI, which were centrally read. Baseline characteristics were compared in the 3 groups and multivariable regression models were fitted for the adjusted association of IDH with LVMI.

RESULTS

Among the 80 participants, 7 (8.8%) had IDH and had average Δ SBP 17.0 ± 10.1 mmHg during HD. Patients with IDH were less likely to be diabetic, had lower pre-dialysis SBP and lower percent interdialytic weight gain as compared to the other 2 groups (p=0.02, p< 0.001 and p=0.02 respectively). In multivariable regression analyses, IDH was significantly associated with LVMI (adjusted mean difference relative to SBP decreased group [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 12.5 [3.6, 21.5], p=0.01) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, IDWG%, pre-HD SBP and beta blocker use. Every 1 mm rise in ΔSBP during HD was associated with 0.2 g/m2 increase in LVMI in adjusted models (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

IDH is independently associated with higher LVMI in hypertensive HD patients and may contribute to increased cardiovascular events.

Pathophysiology and implications of intradialytic hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intradialytic hypertension occurs regularly in 10--15% of hemodialysis patients. A large observational study recently showed that intradialytic hypertension of any magnitude increased mortality risk comparable to the most severe degrees of intradialytic hypotension. The present review review discusses the most recent evidence underlying the pathophysiology of intradialytic hypertension and implications for its management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with intradialytic hypertension typically have small interdialytic weight gains, but bioimpedance spectroscopy shows these patients have significant chronic extracellular volume excess. Intradialytic hypertension patients have lower albumin and predialysis urea nitrogen levels, which may contribute to small reductions in osmolarity that prevents blood pressure decreases. Intradialytic vascular resistance surges remain implicated as the driving force for blood pressure increases, but mediators other than endothelin-1 may be responsible. Beyond dry weight reduction, the only controlled intervention shown to interrupt the blood pressure increase is lowering dialysate sodium.

SUMMARY

Patients with recurrent intradialytic hypertension should be identified as high-risk patients. Dry weight should be re-evaluated, even if patients do not clinically appear volume overloaded. Antihypertensive drugs should be prescribed because of the persistently elevated ambulatory blood pressure. Dialysate sodium reduction should be considered, although the long term effects of this intervention are uncertain.

Why does the choice of dialysate sodium concentration remain controversial?

The choice of the ideal dialysate sodium concentration remains controversial. Most dialysis centers have a standard dialysate concentration. In theory, choosing a dialysate sodium concentration lower than serum sodium should result in an additional loss of sodium by diffusion with a reduction in the prevalence of hypertension and interdialytic weight gains (IDWGs) on one hand, but with potential increased risk of intradialytic hypotension and cramps on the other hand, and the opposite effects may accompany the choice of dialysate sodium concentrations greater than serum concentration. Although most studies have reported a reduction in IDWG with lower dialysate sodium concentrations, the effects on blood pressure control, and adverse intradialytic events have been variable. Different outcomes between studies may be partially explained by patient selection, with differences in dietary sodium intake, urinary sodium losses, and sodium stores in the body. In addition, multicenter trials potentially introduce additional confounders, including differences in local quality control of delivered dialysate sodium concentration and sodium measurements. Although there may be advantages for lower dialysate sodium concentration, observational studies have reported a survival advantage for higher dialysate sodium concentrations for those patients with lower serum sodium concentrations pre-dialysis. As there is no current consensus for a universal dialysate sodium concentration, attention has turned to considering an individualized approach to choosing a dialysate sodium concentration.

Assessing Extracellular Volume in Hemodialysis Patients Using Intradialytic Blood Pressure Slopes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Extracellular volume (ECV) overload is a mortality risk factor in hemodialysis patients, but no standard approach exists to objectively assess this clinically. We aimed to quantify relationships between slopes of repeated intradialytic blood pressure (BP) measurements and ECV.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study of 71 hemodialysis patients, we calculated BP slopes from all intradialytic measurements using Gaussian regression. We measured extracellular and total body water (TBW) with bioimpedance spectroscopy. We analyzed unconditional and conditional associations between BP slope and volume metrics with mixed linear models and sensitivity analyses using non-linear intradialytic BP trajectory.

RESULTS

Mean systolic intradialytic BP slope (IBPS) was -0.06 (0.1) mm Hg/min. Post-dialysis extracellular water (ECW)/weight was the volume metric mostly strongly associated with slope (r = 0.34, p = 0.007 for unconditional analysis; β = 1.45, p = 0.001 for conditional analysis). Among subjects with post-dialysis systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg, the association strengthened (r = 0.40, p = 0.006; β = 1.42, p = 0.003). ECV was more strongly associated with the BP slope than with pre-dialysis, post-dialysis, or delta systolic BP (r = -0.07, 0.19, 0.28; p = 0.6, 0.1, 0.03). In nonlinear models, BP trajectory also had the strongest association with post-dialysis ECW/body weight (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive hemodialysis patients, measurements of ECV excess are more strongly associated with IBPSs than with pre-dialysis, post-dialysis, or change in systolic BP. Among varying volume metrics, post-dialysis ECW/weight has the strongest association with these slopes. Determining IBPS is a novel method to optimize clinical assessment of ECV in hemodialysis patients.

Hypertension in dialysis patients: a consensus document by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

In patients with end-stage renal disease treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, hypertension is very common and often poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) recordings obtained before or after hemodialysis display a J-shaped or U-shaped association with cardiovascular events and survival, but this most likely reflects the low accuracy of these measurements and the peculiar hemodynamic setting related with dialysis treatment. Elevated BP by home or ambulatory BP monitoring is clearly associated with shorter survival. Sodium and volume excess is the prominent mechanism of hypertension in dialysis patients, but other pathways, such as arterial stiffness, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems, endothelial dysfunction, sleep apnea and the use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents may also be involved. Nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sodium and volume excess are fundamental for hypertension control in this population. If BP remains elevated after appropriate treatment of sodium-volume excess, the use of antihypertensive agents is necessary. Drug treatment in the dialysis population should take into consideration the patient's comorbidities and specific characteristics of each agent, such as dialysability. This document is an overview of the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of hypertension in patients on dialysis, aiming to offer the renal physician practical recommendations based on current knowledge and expert opinion and to highlight areas for future research.

Special situations: Intradialytic hypertension/chronic hypertension and intradialytic hypotension

Hypertension is a comorbidity that is present in the majority of end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. This population is particularly unique because of the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) during dialysis. Modest BP decreases are expected in most hemodialysis patients, but intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are two special situations that deviate from this as either an exaggerated or paradoxical response to the dialysis procedure. Both of these phenomena are particularly important because they are associated with increased mortality risk compared to patients with modest decreases in BP during dialysis. While the detailed pathophysiology is complex, intradialytic hypotension occurs more often in patients prescribed fast ultrafiltration rates, and reducing this rate is recommended in patients that regularly exhibit this pattern. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have a poorly explained increase in vascular resistance during dialysis, but the consistent associations with extracellular volume overload point toward more aggressive fluid management as the initial management choices for these patients. This up to date review provides the most recent evidence supporting these recommendations as well as the most up to date epidemiologic and mechanistic research studies that have added to this area of dialysis management.

The influence of time point of blood pressure measurement on the outcome in hemodialysis patients

The blood pressure (BP) behaviors of hemodialysis (HD) population presented a unique pattern much different from that of the general population. This pattern is composed of chronic BP burden over interdialytic period and acute BP fluctuation during dialysis sessions. Peridialysis, interdialysis, and intradialysis are three routinely used time points to capture this complex BP behavior. However, BP at each time point was measured in various forms and conveyed different prognostic information. The measurement and interpretation of the tide-like BP behavior in HD population posed great challenge. In this review, we focused on the prognostic information of the BP behavior at each time point in HD patients and further discussed the optimal measurement of this unique BP behavior to best capture the BP-outcome association.

Hypertension in the Hemodialysis Patient

Hypertension is common yet difficult to manage in the hemodialysis patients population. This chapter discusses various aspects of this problem including its prevalence, distinctive pathophysiology, methods of diagnosis and pharmacological and non pharmacological treatment approaches. The topic is relevant to any health care provider taking care of hemodialysis patients.

Extracellular Volume Overload and Increased Vasoconstriction in Patients With Recurrent Intradialytic Hypertension

Background/Aims

Intradialytic hypertension (IH) occurs frequently in some hemodialysis patients and increases mortality risk. We simultaneously compared pre-dialysis, post-dialysis and changes in extracellular volume and hemodynamics in recurrent IH patients and controls.

Methods

We performed a case-control study among prevalent hemodialysis patients with recurrent IH and hypertensive hemodialysis controls. We used bioimpedance spectroscopy and impedance cardiography to compare pre-dialysis, post-dialysis, and intradialytic change in total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW), as well as cardiac index (CI) and total peripheral resistance index (TPRI).

Results

The ECW/TBW was 0.453 (0.05) pre-dialysis and 0.427 (0.04) post-dialysis in controls vs. 0.478 (0.03) and 0.461 (0.03) in IH patients (p=0.01 post-dialysis). The ECW/TBW change was −0.027 (0.03) in controls and −0.013 (0.02) in IH patients (p=0.1). In controls, pre- and post-dialysis TPRI were 3254 (994) and 2469 (529) dynes/sec/cm²/m² vs. 2983 (747) and 3408 (980) dynes/sec/cm²/m² in IH patients (p=0.002 post-dialysis). There were between-group differences in TPRI change (0=0.0001), but not CI (p=0.09).

Conclusions

Recurrent intradialytic hypertension is associated with higher post-dialysis extracellular volume and TPRI. Intradialytic TPRI surges account for the vasoconstrictive state post-dialysis, but intradialytic fluid shifts may contribute to post-hemodialysis volume expansion.

Evaluation and Treatment of Hypertension in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Hemodialysis

Hypertension is one of the most common cardiovascular comorbidities in end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis. Its complex pathophysiology is related to extracellular volume overload, increased vascular resistance stemming from factors related to uremia or abnormal signaling from the failing kidneys, as well as the unique blood pressure changes that take place during and between hemodialysis treatments. Despite the changing nature of blood pressure over time in hemodialysis patients, hypertension diagnosed in or out of the hemodialysis unit is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This review details the causes of hypertension in hemodialysis patients and provides an updated review of the clinical consequences and management of hypertension.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and management of hypertension among patients on chronic dialysis

The diagnosis and management of hypertension among patients on chronic dialysis is challenging. Routine peridialytic blood pressure recordings are unable to accurately diagnose hypertension and stratify cardiovascular risk. By contrast, blood pressure recordings taken outside the dialysis setting exhibit clear prognostic associations with survival and might facilitate the diagnosis and long-term management of hypertension. Once accurately diagnosed, management of hypertension in individuals on chronic dialysis should initially involve non-pharmacological strategies to control volume overload. Accordingly, first-line strategies should focus on achieving dry weight, individualizing dialysate sodium concentrations and ensuring dialysis sessions are at least 4 h in duration. If blood pressure remains unresponsive to volume management strategies, pharmacological treatment is required. The choice of appropriate antihypertensive regimen should be individualized taking into account the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties of the antihypertensive medications as well as any comorbid conditions and the overall risk profile of the patient. In contrast to their effects in the general hypertensive population, emerging evidence suggests that β-blockers might offer the greatest cardioprotection in hypertensive patients on dialysis. In this Review, we discuss estimates of the epidemiology of hypertension in the dialysis population as well as the challenges in diagnosing and managing hypertension among these patients.

Comparison of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Patterns in Patients With Intradialytic Hypertension and Hemodialysis Controls

Background/Aims

Intradialytic hypertension (IH) patients have higher mortality risk than other hemodialysis patients and have been shown to have higher ambulatory blood pressure (BP). We hypothesized that interdialytic BP patterns would differ in IH patients and hypertensive hemodialysis controls.

Methods

We consecutively screened hemodialysis patients at our university-affliated units. Based on pre and post-HD BP measurements during the prior 2 week period, we identified IH patients and demographically matched hemodialysis controls. We measured ambulatory interdialytic BP, fow-mediated vasodilation, and intradialytic endothelin-1 (ET-1). Using linear mixed-models, we compared BP slopes during the following intervals: 1–24 hours post-dialysis, 25–44 hours post-dialysis, and 1–44 hours post-dialysis.

Results

There were 25 case subjects with IH and 24 controls. Systolic BP during hours 1–44, 1–24, and 25–44 were 143.1 (16.5), 138.0 (21.2), and 150.8 (22.3) mmHg in controls. For IH subjects, they were 155.4 (14.2), 152.7 (22.8), and 156.5 (20.8) mmHg (p=0.008, 0.02, 0.4). In controls, the slopes were +0.6, +0.6, and +0.4 mmHg/hr. In IH subjects, they were +0.1, −0.3, and +0.3 mmHg/hr. The IH 1–24 hour slope differed from the IH 25–44 hour slope (p=0.001) and the control 1–24 hour slope (p=0.002). The change in ET-1 from pre to post dialysis was 0.5 (1.5) pg/mL in controls and 1.0 (2.3) pg/mL in IH patients (p=0.4). In a univariate model, there was an association with screening BP and BP slope (p=0.002 for controls and p=0.1 for IH patients).

Conclusions

Interdialytic BP patterns differ in IH patients and hemodialysis controls. The elevated post dialysis blood pressure persists for many hours in IH patients contributing to the overall increased BP burden.

Acute Effects of Hemodiafiltration Versus Conventional Hemodialysis on Endothelial Function and Inflammation: A Randomized Crossover Study

Endothelial dysfunction and chronic inflammatory process are prevalent in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute and short-term effects of online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) versus conventional HD on endothelial function and inflammation. A prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Twenty stable ESRD patients undergoing chronic HD treatments were randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to conventional HD and to OL-HDF both for 2 weeks (either HD followed by OL-HDF or OL-HDF followed by HD). Markers of endothelial dysfunction such as flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery, soluble endothelial protein C receptor (sEPCR), and soluble thrombomodulin (sTM) were measured at baseline, after the first dialysis session and after 2 weeks. Meanwhile, serum interleukin 6 (IL-6) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels were measured as well. Both a single OL-HDF session and 2-week OL-HDF significantly improved brachial FMD% (18.7 ± 6.9% at baseline; 21.5 ± 5.4% after the first dialysis; 21.5 ± 5.7% after 2 weeks; P < 0.05 vs baseline), decreased the levels of sEPCR (from 394.4 [297.9-457.0] ng/ml at baseline to 234.7 [174.1-345.5] ng/ml after the first dialysis, and to 191.5 [138.2-255.0] ng/ml after 2 weeks; P < 0.01 vs baseline) and sTM. In contrast, HD did not change FMD%, even increased the levels of sEPCR and sTM. A reduction in IL-6 level was observed in OL-HDF patients after 2-week dialysis, while IL-6 did not change in HD patients. There was no significant difference in change of hs-CRP level between the OL-HDF and HD treatments. OL-HDF has both acute and short-term beneficial effects on endothelial dysfunction compared to conventional HD.

Mechanisms and Treatment of Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypertension is a condition where there is an increase in blood pressure (BP) from pre- to post-hemodialysis; this condition has been recently identified as an independent mortality risk factor in hypertensive hemodialysis patients. The mechanisms and management of intradialytic hypertension have been explored in numerous research studies over the past few years.

SUMMARY

Patients with intradialytic hypertension have been found to be more chronically volume overloaded compared to other hemodialysis patients, although no causal role has been established. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have intradialytic vascular resistance surges that likely explain the BP increase during dialysis. Acute intradialytic changes in endothelial cell function have been proposed as etiologies for the increase in vascular resistance, although it is unclear if endothelin-1 or some other vasoconstrictive peptide is responsible. There is an association between dialysate to serum sodium gradients and BP increase during dialysis in patients with intradialytic hypertension, although it is unclear if this is related to endothelial cell activity or acute osmolar changes. In addition to probing the dry weight of patients with intradialytic hypertension, other management strategies include lowering dialysate sodium and changing antihypertensives to include carvedilol or other poorly dialyzed antihypertensives.

KEY MESSAGES

Hemodialysis patients with intradialytic hypertension have an increased mortality risk compared to patients with modest decreases in BP during dialysis. Intradialytic hypertension is associated with extracellular volume overload in addition to acute increases in vascular resistance during dialysis. Management strategies should include reevaluation of dry weight and modification of both the dialysate prescription and medication prescription.

Effect of the decrease in dialysate sodium in pediatric patients on chronic hemodialysis

Optimal dialysate sodium (dNa) is unknown, with both higher and lower values suggested in adult studies to improve outcomes. Similar studies in pediatric hemodialysis (HD) population are missing. This is the first report of the effect of two constant dNa concentrations in pediatric patients on chronic HD. 480 standard HD sessions and interdialytic periods were studied in 5 patients (age 4-17 years, weight 20.8-66 kg) during a period of 6-11 months per patient. dNa was 140 mEq/L during the first half, and 138 mEq/L during the second half of the study period for each patient. Lowering dNa was associated with improved preHD hypertension, decreased interdialytic weight gain, decreased need for ultrafiltration, lower sodium gradient and was well tolerated despite lack of concordance with predialysis sNa, that was variable. Further studies are needed to verify our findings and to investigate if an even lower dNa may be more beneficial in the pediatric HD population.

Intradialytic Blood Pressure Abnormalities: The Highs, The Lows and All That Lies Between

BACKGROUND

Frequent blood pressure (BP) measurements are necessary to ensure patient safety during hemodialysis treatments. Intradialytic BPs are not optimal tools for hypertension diagnosis and cardiovascular risk stratification, but they do have critical clinical and prognostic significance. We present evidence associating intradialytic BP phenomena including fall, rise and variability with adverse clinical outcomes and review related pathophysiologic mechanisms and potential management strategies.

SUMMARY

Observational studies demonstrate associations between intradialytic hypotension, hypertension and BP variability and mortality. Lack of consensus regarding diagnostic criteria has hampered data synthesis, and prospective studies investigating optimal management strategies for BP phenomena are lacking. Mechanistic data suggest that cardiac, gut, kidney and brain ischemia may lie on the causal pathway between intradialytic hypotension and mortality, and endothelial cell dysfunction, among other factors, may be an important mediator of intradialytic hypertension and adverse outcomes. These plausible pathophysiologic links present potential therapeutic targets for future inquiry. The phenomenon of intradialytic BP variability has not been adequately studied, and practical clinical measures and treatment strategies are lacking.

KEY MESSAGES

Intradialytic BP phenomena have important prognostic bearing. Clinical practice guidelines for both intradialytic hypotension and hypertension exist, but their underlying evidence is weak overall. Further research is needed to develop consensus diagnostic criteria for intradialytic hypotension, hypertension and BP variability and to elucidate optimal treatment and prevention strategies for each BP manifestation.