Haemodialysate: long neglected, difficult to optimize, may modify hard outcomes

An update review of intradialytic hypotension: concept, risk factors, clinical implications and management

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a frequent and serious complication of chronic haemodialysis, linked to adverse long-term outcomes including increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. IDH is the end result of the interaction between ultrafiltration rate (UFR), cardiac output and arteriolar tone. Thus excessive ultrafiltration may decrease the cardiac output, especially when compensatory mechanisms (heart rate, myocardial contractility, vascular tone and splanchnic flow shifts) fail to be optimally recruited. The repeated disruption of end-organ perfusion in IDH may lead to various adverse clinical outcomes affecting the heart, central nervous system, kidney and gastrointestinal system. Potential interventions to decrease the incidence or severity of IDH include optimization of the dialysis prescription (cool dialysate, UFR, sodium profiling and high-flux haemofiltration), interventions during the dialysis session (midodrine, mannitol, food intake, intradialytic exercise and intermittent pneumatic compression of the lower limbs) and interventions in the interdialysis period (lower interdialytic weight gain and blood pressure–lowering drugs). However, the evidence base for many of these interventions is thin and optimal prevention and management of IDH awaits further clinical investigation. Developing a consensus definition of IDH will facilitate clinical research. We review the most recent findings on risk factors, pathophysiology and management of IDH and, based on this, we call for a new consensus definition of IDH based on clinical outcomes and define a roadmap for IDH research.

Translational science in chronic kidney disease

The KDIGO definition of chronic kidney disease (CKD) allowed a more detailed characterization of CKD causes, epidemiology and consequences. The picture that has emerged is worrisome from the point of view of translation. CKD was among the fastest growing causes of death in the past 20 years in age-adjusted terms. The gap between recent advances and the growing worldwide mortality appears to result from sequential roadblocks that limit the flow from basic research to clinical development (translational research type 1, T1), from clinical development to clinical practice (translational research T2) and result in deficient widespread worldwide implementation of already available medical advances (translational research T3). We now review recent advances and novel concepts that have the potential to change the practice of nephrology in order to improve the outcomes of the maximal number of individuals in the shortest possible interval. These include: (i) updating the CKD concept, shifting the emphasis to the identification, risk stratification and care of early CKD and redefining the concept of aging-associated 'physiological' decline of renal function; (ii) advances in the characterization of aetiological factors, including challenging the concept of hypertensive nephropathy, the better definition of the genetic contribution to CKD progression, assessing the role of the liquid biopsy in aetiological diagnosis and characterizing the role of drugs that may be applied to the earliest stages of injury, such as SGLT2 inhibitors in diabetic kidney disease (DKD); (iii) embracing the complexity of CKD as a network disease and (iv) exploring ways to optimize implementation of existing knowledge.

Dialysate Potassium, Serum Potassium, Mortality, and Arrhythmia Events in Hemodialysis: Results From the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)

BACKGROUND

Sudden death is a leading cause of death in patients on maintenance hemodialysis therapy. During hemodialysis sessions, the gradient between serum and dialysate levels results in rapid electrolyte shifts, which may contribute to arrhythmias and sudden death. Controversies exist about the optimal electrolyte concentration in the dialysate; specifically, it is unclear whether patient outcomes differ among those treated with a dialysate potassium concentration of 3 mEq/L compared to 2 mEq/L.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

55,183 patients from 20 countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) phases 1 to 5 (1996-2015).

PREDICTOR

Dialysate potassium concentration at study entry.

OUTCOMES

Cox regression was used to estimate the association between dialysate potassium concentration and both all-cause mortality and an arrhythmia composite outcome (arrhythmia-related hospitalization or sudden death), adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16.5 months, 24% of patients died and 7% had an arrhythmia composite outcome. No meaningful difference in clinical outcomes was observed for patients treated with a dialysate potassium concentration of 3 versus 2 mEq/L (adjusted HRs were 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91-1.01] for mortality and 0.98 [95% CI, 0.88-1.08] for arrhythmia composite). Results were similar across predialysis serum potassium levels. As in prior studies, higher serum potassium level was associated with adverse outcomes. However, dialysate potassium concentration had only minimal impact on serum potassium level measured predialysis (+0.09 [95% CI, 0.05-0.14] mEq/L serum potassium per 1 mEq/L greater dialysate potassium concentration).

LIMITATIONS

Data were not available for delivered (vs prescribed) dialysate potassium concentration and postdialysis serum potassium level; possible unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination, these results suggest that approaches other than altering dialysate potassium concentration (eg, education on dietary potassium sources and prescription of potassium-binding medications) may merit further attention to reduce risks associated with high serum potassium levels.

Optimizing dialysate potassium

Potassium shifts in thrice weekly HD patients are likely a reversible cause of arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. In general, a dialysate potassium <2.0 mmol/L should be avoided, and many patients with dialysate potassium of 2 mmol/L could safely be adjusted upwards. The ideal predialysis serum potassium should be around 5.0 mmol/L. Trends in serum potassium and not single values, should inform chronic changes of dialysate potassium prescription. Atypical values should be dealt with as a one off, but should not lead to chronic bath changes. Referral to a renal dietician for counseling to limit dietary potassium intake is vital to prevent recurrence of these atypical episodes. Finally, facilities should develop and implement a formal and reliable way to alert the physician about possible potassium bath mismatching. This facility level approach works best if a policy is developed and endorsed by all involved stakeholders.