Relation between trends in body temperature and outcome in incident hemodialysis patients

Impact of first-wave COronaVIrus disease 2019 infection in patients on haemoDIALysis in Alsace: the observational COVIDIAL study

BACKGROUND

There are only scarce data regarding the presentation, incidence, severity and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients undergoing long-term haemodialysis (HD). A prospective observational study was conducted in eight HD facilities in Alsace, France, to identify clinical characteristics of HD patients with COVID-19 and to assess the determinants of the risk of death.

METHODS

All HD patients tested positive for COVID-19 from 5 March to 28 April 2020 were included. Collected data included patient characteristics, clinical features at diagnosis, laboratory data, treatments and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1346 HD patients, 123 tested positive for COVID-19. Patients had a median age of 77 years (interquartile range 66-83), with a high number of comorbidities (3.2 ± 1.6 per patient). Symptoms were compatible in 63% of patients. Asthenia (77%), diarrhoea (34%) and anorexia (32%) were frequent at diagnosis. The delay between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis, death or complete recovery was 2 (0-5), 7 (4-11) and 32 (26.5-35) days, respectively. Treatment, including lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine and corticosteroids, was administered in 23% of patients. The median C-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocyte count at diagnosis was 55 mg/L (IQR 25-106) and 690 Ly/µL (IQR 450-960), respectively. The case fatality rate was 24% and determinants associated with the risk of death were body temperature {hazard ratio [HR] 1.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.44]; P = 0.02} and CRP at diagnosis [HR 1.01 (95% CI 1.005-1.017); P < 0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

HD patients were found to be at high risk of developing COVID-19 and exhibited a high rate of mortality. While patients presented severe forms of the disease, they often displayed atypical symptoms, with the CRP level being highly associated with the risk of death.

Effect of Isothermic Dialysis on Intradialytic Hypertension

The primary outcome was incidence of intradialytic hypertension (IDH) during standard and cooler isothermic dialysate temperatures. Two pair of haemodialysis sessions were done at 37°C (SHD) and at isothermic temperature (IHD). All the four dialysis were done on the same time of the day to negate the changes due to circadian variation in body temperature. Axillary and tympanic temperatures were measured before start of the dialysis and dialysis temperature was adjusted as per axillary temperature. Sixty patients were enrolled and completed the study. The mean delivered dialysate temperature in the intervention group was 36.5 ± 0.2 achieving a 0.5 ± 0.2°C between-group separation. The incidence of IDH and intradialytic hypotension while on SHD and IHD were 79/120 (66%) vs 44/120 (37%), odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.96–5.65) and 45/120 (38%) vs 14/120 (12%), OR 4.5, 95% CI (2.3–8.7), respectively. The 4 h time averaged mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) at IHD and SHD were 154 ± 1.7 and 157.2 ± 1.1 mmHg, respectively, the mean difference in SBP being −3.4 mmHg to −3.1 mmHg, 95% CI, P < 0.001. The standard deviation, a measure of BP variability was lower at IHD than at SHD (P < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis during IHD there was a significant reduction of both SBP and diastolic BP during the entire duration of dialysis in 35 out of 60 patients (systolic 4 h mean 154.96 ± 2.22 vs 164.32 ± 1.99 mmHg), (diastolic 4 h mean 79.24 ± 0.82 vs 82.54 ± 0.68 mmHg) – (rANOVA for systolic and diastolic <0.001). This phenomenon of cooler dialysis causing reduction of BP was reproduced in the same group of patients when the IHD was repeated another time (systolic 4 h mean 157.95 ± 1.88 vs 160.65 ± 1.47), (diastolic 4 h mean 79.27 ± 0.74 vs 82.03 ± 1.07) rANOVA for systolic and diastolic <0.001. The incidence of IDH can be reduced significantly by reducing the dialysate temperature to patients' body temperature. Hypertension during dialysis is related to heat gain during dialysis.

Dialysate temperature of 36 °C: association with clinical outcomes

Dialysate cooling, either individualized based upon patient body temperature, or to a standardized temperature below 37 °C, has been proposed to minimize hemodynamic insults and improve outcomes among hemodialysis patients. However, low dialysate temperatures (35-35.5 °C) are associated with patient discomfort, and individualized dialysate cooling is difficult to operationalize. Here, we tested whether a standardized dialysate temperature of 36 °C (dT36) was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to the default temperature of 37 °C (dT37). Because patients with known hemodynamic instability may be selectively prescribed dT36, we minimized selection bias by considering only incident adult in-center hemodialysis patients who, between Jan 2011 and Dec 2013 received their first-ever hemodialysis treatment at a large dialysis organization. Exposure status was based on the treatment order for this first-ever treatment. 313 dT36 patients were identified and propensity-score matched (1:5) to 1565 dT37 controls. Death, hospitalization, and missed hemodialysis treatments were considered from the date of first-ever hemodialysis treatment until the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, crossover (month in which prescribed dialysate temperature was consistent with patient's exposure group for <80% of treatments), or study end (June 2015). During follow-up, rates of death, hospitalization and missed hemodialysis treatments did not differ between the two groups. This study therefor showed no benefit of dT36 vs. dT37 with respect to these clinical outcomes. Our results do not favor conversion to a default dialysate temperature of 36 °C. Individualized dialysate cooling may provide a more reliable approach to achieve the hemodynamic benefits associated with reduced dialysate temperature.

Supportive Care: Time to Change Our Prognostic Tools and Their Use in CKD

In using a patient-centered approach, neither a clinician nor a prognostic score can predict with absolute certainty how well a patient will do or how long he will live; however, validated prognostic scores may improve accuracy of prognostic estimates, thereby enhancing the ability of the clinicians to appreciate the individual burden of disease and the prognosis of their patients and inform them accordingly. They may also facilitate nephrologist's recommendation of dialysis services to those who may benefit and proposal of alternative care pathways that might better respect patients' values and goals to those who are unlikely to benefit. The purpose of this article is to discuss the use as well as the limits and deficiencies of currently available prognostic tools. It will describe new predictors that could be integrated in future scores and the role of patients' priorities in development of new scores. Delivering patient-centered care requires an understanding of patients' priorities that are important and relevant to them. Because of limits of available scores, the contribution of new prognostic tools with specific markers of the trajectories for patients with CKD and patients' health reports should be evaluated in relation to their transportability to different clinical and cultural contexts and their potential for integration into the decision-making processes. The benefit of their use then needs to be quantified in clinical practice by outcome studies including health-related quality of life, patient and caregiver satisfaction, or utility for improving clinical management pathways and tailoring individualized patient-centered strategies of care. Future research also needs to incorporate qualitative methods involving patients and their caregivers to better understand the barriers and facilitators to use of these tools in the clinical setting. Information given to patients should be supported by a more realistic approach to what dialysis is likely to entail for the individual patient in terms of likely quality and quantity of life according to the patient's values and goals and not just the possibility of life prolongation.

Hypothermia in Uremic Dogs and Cats

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of uremic hypothermia (UH) and the effects of improving uremia on body temperature have not been determined in veterinary patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of UH and correlations between uremia and body temperature in patients undergoing intermittent hemodialysis (IHD).

ANIMALS

Uremic dogs (n = 122) and cats (n = 79) treated by IHD at the Bobst Hospital of the Animal Medical Center from 1997 to 2013.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical records.

RESULTS

The prevalence of hypothermia was 38% in azotemic cats and 20.5% in azotemic dogs. Statistically significant temperature differences were observed between uremic and nonuremic dogs (nonuremic: mean, 100.8°F; range, 91.2-109.5°F; uremic: mean, 99.9°F; range, 95.6-103.8°F; P < .0001) and cats (nonuremic: mean, 100.6°F; range, 94.0-103.8°F; uremic: mean, 99.3°F; range, 92.3-103.4°F; P < .0001). In dog dialysis patients, significant models included (1) timing (pre-dialysis versus post-dialysis) with weight class (small [P < .0001], medium [P = .016], and large breed [P = .033] dogs), (2) timing with serum creatinine concentration (P = .021), and (3) timing with BUN concentration (P < .0001). In cat dialysis patients, there was a significant interaction between timing and weight as a categorical variable (<5 kg and ≥5 kg).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Uremic hypothermia appears to be a clinical phenomenon that occurs in cats and dogs. Uremic patients are hypothermic compared to ill nonuremic patients and body temperatures increase when uremia is corrected with IHD in dogs and in cats >5 kg. In cats, UH seems to be a more prevalent phenomenon driven by uremia. Uremic hypothermia does occur in dogs, but body weight is a more important predictor of body temperature.

Thyroid functional disease: an under-recognized cardiovascular risk factor in kidney disease patients

Thyroid functional disease, and in particular hypothyroidism, is highly prevalent among chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. In the general population, hypothyroidism is associated with impaired cardiac contractility, endothelial dysfunction, atherosclerosis and possibly higher cardiovascular mortality. It has been hypothesized that hypothyroidism is an under-recognized, modifiable risk factor for the enormous burden of cardiovascular disease and death in CKD and ESRD, but this has been difficult to test due to the challenge of accurate thyroid functional assessment in uremia. Low thyroid hormone levels (i.e. triiodothyronine) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular sequelae in CKD and ESRD patients, but these metrics are confounded by malnutrition, inflammation and comorbid states, and hence may signify nonthyroidal illness (i.e. thyroid functional test derangements associated with underlying ill health in the absence of thyroid pathology). Thyrotropin is considered a sensitive and specific thyroid function measure that may more accurately classify hypothyroidism, but few studies have examined the clinical significance of thyrotropin-defined hypothyroidism in CKD and ESRD. Of even greater uncertainty are the risks and benefits of thyroid hormone replacement, which bear a narrow therapeutic-to-toxic window and are frequently prescribed to CKD and ESRD patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms by which hypothyroidism adversely affects cardiovascular health; examine the prognostic implications of hypothyroidism, thyroid hormone alterations and exogenous thyroid hormone replacement in CKD and ESRD; and identify areas of uncertainty related to the interplay between hypothyroidism, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease requiring further investigation.

The MONitoring Dialysis Outcomes (MONDO) initiative

BACKGROUND

Systematic collection and analysis of global hemodialysis patient data may help to improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The MONitoring Dialysis Outcomes (MONDO) initiative comprises data from eight dialysis providers worldwide. Data are combined into one repository. Extensive procedures are employed to merge data across countries and providers.

RESULTS

The MONDO database comprises longitudinal data of currently 128,000 hemodialysis patients from 26 countries on five continents. Here we report data from 62,345 incident hemodialysis patients. We found lower catheter rates in South-East Asia and Australia, lower hemoglobin levels in South-East Asia, and a higher prevalence of diabetes in North America. Longitudinal analyses suggest that there is a decline in interdialytic weight gain and serum phosphorus and an increasing neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio before death in all regions studied.

CONCLUSIONS

While organizationally lean and low-cost, MONDO is the largest global dialysis database initiative to date, with a particular focus on high longitudinal data density and geographical diversity.