Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus that of angiotensin receptor blockers on survival in patients undergoing hemodialysis: a nationwide observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the patient survival rates based on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) in a large cohort of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

Data from a national HD quality assessment program were used in this retrospective study. The patients were classified into four groups based on the use of renin-angiotensin system blockers (RASBs) as follows: No group, patients without a prescription of any anti-hypertensive drugs including RASBs; Other group, patients with a prescription of anti-hypertensive drugs excluding RASBs; ACEI group, patients with a prescription of an ACEI; and ARB group, patients with a prescription of an ARB.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rates in the no, other, ACEI, and ARB groups were 68.6%, 67.8%, 70.6%, and 69.2%, respectively. The ACEI group had the best patient survival trend among the four groups. In multivariable Cox regression analyses, no differences were observed between the ACEI and ARB groups. Among young patients and patients without diabetes or heart disease, the ACEI group had the best patient survival among the four groups. However, among patients with DM or heart disease, the ARB group had the best patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that patients receiving ACEI and ARB had comparable survival. However, patients receiving ARB had better survival in the subgroups of patients with DM or heart disease, and patients receiving ACEI had better survival in the subgroup of young patients or patients without diabetes or heart disease.

Recurrent Hospitalizations for Fluid Overload in Diabetes with Kidney Failure Treated with Dialysis

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is the most common cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in Singapore. ESKD patients have high disease burden and are at increased risk of recurrent hospitalizations, including fluid overload. This study aimed to characterize the risk factors associated with readmissions for fluid overload that will identify high-risk hospitalizations for interventions to reduce readmissions.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of all hospitalizations for fluid overload in adults with diabetes and ESKD on dialysis in SingHealth hospitals between 2018 and 2021. Fluid overload was defined by discharge codes for fluid overload, heart failure, pulmonary edema, and generalized edema. Multivariable Cox regression analysis using the Prentice, Williams and Peterson Total Time model was performed for the outcomes of readmissions for fluid overload within 30 days and 90 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Among 3,234 hospitalizations for fluid overload, readmission for fluid overload within 30 days and 90 days occurred in 585 (18.1%) and 967 (29.9%) hospitalizations, respectively. Ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and lower hemoglobin level were independently associated with readmissions for fluid overload within 30 and 90 days. Additionally, heart failure, hemodialysis (compared to peritoneal dialysis), and lack of statin at discharge were associated with increased 90-day readmission risk.

CONCLUSION

Modifiable (hemoglobin level, statin use) and non-modifiable factors (ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure) influenced the risk of readmission for fluid overload. These results may guide risk stratification and inform targeted interventions to reduce avoidable, unplanned readmissions for recurrent fluid overload among individuals with diabetes and ESKD.

A, Lin SJ. Impact of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB) versus Other Antihypertensive Medication on Blood Pressure in Patients on Dialysis: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Hypertension is an important factor driving mortality among dialysis patients. Angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) has been effective similarly to angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACEs) but with a low incidence of side effects.

Methodology

The meta-analysis included all published studies that investigated the effect of ARB on the hypertension in adult dialysis patients (≥18 years). Data extraction was guided by a predetermined checklist. Data sources of the retrieved studies were PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, Cochrane, Web of knowledge, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until February 2023. Using the RevMan 5 software, the mean difference for systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) and the risk ratio (RR) of the adverse events (AEs) were pooled from the selected studies. The random-effects model was used to compare the difference in the pre-and post-dialysis of the SBP and DBP. Data analyses were performed from December 2022 to February 2023. The primary outcome was the reduction in SBP and DBP in dialysis hypertensive patients who were on anti-hypertensive agents, and the secondary outcome was assessment of AE associated with the drug after dialysis (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022355369).

Results

The initial search yielded 1,679 records, of which 84 studies underwent full-text evaluation, which identified 13 studies and 1,462 patients. The pooled standard MD for losartan with other anti-hypertensive agents, where the pre-dialysis SBP was 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.21-0.55) and the post-dialysis was 0.35 (95% CI: -0.17-1.02); yet, both are statistically non-significant, implies that there was no difference between Losartan and ARB drugs regarding the effect on the SBP. Diastolic BP for predialysis was -0.01 (95% CI: -0.65-0.63) and post-dialysis was 0.03 (95% CI: -0.24-0.30) and statistically non-significant. AEs by the ARB agents were lower compared to other anti-antihypertensive agents (relative risk [RR]: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.59-1.75) and statistically non-significant.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT demonstrated that ARB and other anti-hypertensive medications had similar impacts on the treatment of hypertension.

Effect of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia: A post hoc analysis of the LANDMARK trial

INTRODUCTION

The clinical benefits of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients undergoing hemodialysis remain obscure.

METHODS

This is a post hoc cohort analysis of the LANDMARK trial investigate whether RASi use was associated with cardiovascular events (CVEs) and all-cause mortality. A total of 2135 patients at risk for vascular calcification were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

The risk of CVEs was similar between participants with RASi use at baseline and those without RASi use at baseline and between participants with RASi use during the study period and those without RASi use during the study period. No clinical benefits of RASi use on all-cause mortality were observed. Serum phosphate levels were significantly associated with the effect of RASi on CVEs.

CONCLUSIONS

RASi use was not significantly associated with a lower risk of CVEs or all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients at risk of vascular calcification.

Resistant Hypertension in Dialysis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management

Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension is defined as an elevated BP despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive medications from different classes or the use of ≥4 antihypertensives regardless of BP levels. Among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, using this definition, the prevalence of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension is estimated to be between 18% and 42%. Owing to the lack of a rigorous assessment of some common causes of pseudoresistance, the burden of true resistant hypertension in the dialysis population remains unknown. What distinguishes apparent treatment-resistance from true resistance is white-coat hypertension and adherence to medications. Accordingly, the diagnostic workup of a dialysis patient with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension on dialysis includes the accurate determination of BP control status with the use of home or ambulatory BP monitoring and exclusion of nonadherence to the prescribed antihypertensive regimen. In a patient on dialysis with inadequately controlled BP, despite adherence to therapy with maximally tolerated doses of a β -blocker, a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, volume-mediated hypertension is the most important treatable cause of resistance. In daily clinical practice, such patients are often managed with intensification of antihypertensive therapy. However, this therapeutic strategy is likely to fail if volume overload is not adequately recognized or treated. Instead of increasing the number of prescribed BP-lowering medications, we recommend diet and dialysate restricted in sodium to facilitate achievement of dry weight. The achievement of dry weight is facilitated by an adequate time on dialysis of at least 4 hours for delivering an adequate dialysis dose. In this article, we review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of resistant hypertension among patients on dialysis.

Antihypertensive treatment of end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis does not alter circulating ACE and ACE2 activity and angiotensin peptides

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the main causes of death in hemodialysis patients, representing a public health challenge. We investigated the effect of different antihypertensive treatments on circulating levels of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on hemodialysis. ESRD patients were grouped following the prescribed antihypertensive drugs: ß-blocker, ß-blocker+ACEi and ß-blocker+AT1R blocker. ESDR patients under no antihypertensive drug treatment were used as controls. Blood samples were collected before hemodialysis sessions. Enzymatic activities of the angiotensin-converting enzymes ACE and ACE2 were measured through fluorescence assays and plasma concentrations of the peptides Angiotensin II (Ang II) and Angiotensin-(1-7) [Ang-(1-7)] were quantified using mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). ACE activity was decreased only in the ß-blocker+ACEi group compared to the ß-blocker+AT1R, while ACE2 activity did not change according to the antihypertensive treatment. Both Ang II and Ang-(1-7) levels also did not change according to the antihypertensive treatment. We concluded that the treatment of ESRD patients on hemodialysis with different antihypertensive drugs do not alter the circulating levels of RAS components.

Does Renal Denervation a Reasonable Treatment Option in Hemodialysis-Dependent Patient with Resistant Hypertension? A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review aims to assess the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of resistant hypertension (RH) in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on dialysis, with a specific focus on the effect of renal denervation (RDN) on short-term and long-term blood pressure (BP) control. Additionally, we share our experience with the use of RDN in an amyloidotic patient undergoing hemodialysis with RH.

RECENT FINDINGS

High BP, an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, is often observed in patients in ESKD, despite the administration of multiple antihypertensive medications. However, in clinical practice, it remains challenging to identify RH patients on dialysis treatment because of the absence of specific definition for RH in this context. Moreover, the use of invasive approaches, such as RDN, to treat RH is limited by the exclusion of patients with reduced renal function (eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m3) in the clinical trials. Nevertheless, recent studies have reported encouraging results regarding the effectiveness of RDN in stage 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ESKD patients on dialysis, with reductions in BP of nearly up to 10 mmhg. Although multiple underlying pathophysiological mechanisms contribute to RH, the overactivation of the sympathetic nervous system in ESKD patients on dialysis plays a crucial role. The diagnosis of RH requires both confirmation of adherence to antihypertensive therapy and the presence of uncontrolled BP values by ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring. Treatment involves a combination of nonpharmacological approaches (such as dry weight reduction, sodium restriction, dialysate sodium concentration reduction, and exercise) and pharmacological treatments. A promising approach for managing of RH is based on catheter-based RDN, through radiofrequency, ultrasound, or alcohol infusion, directly targeting on sympathetic overactivity.

Diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in dialysis patients: a systematic review

In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis, hypertension is common but often inadequately controlled. The prevalence of hypertension varies widely among studies because of differences in the definition of hypertension and the methods of used to measure blood pressure (BP), i.e., peri-dialysis or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Recently, ABPM has become the gold standard for diagnosing hypertension in dialysis patients. Home BP monitoring can also be a good alternative to ABPM, emphasizing BP measurement outside the hemodialysis (HD) unit. One thing for sure is pre- and post-dialysis BP measurements should not be used alone to diagnose and manage hypertension in dialysis patients. The exact target of BP and the relationship between BP and all-cause mortality or cause-specific mortality are unclear in this population. Many observational studies with HD cohorts have almost universally reported a U-shaped or even an L-shaped association between BP and all-cause mortality, but most of these data are based on the BP measured in HD units. Some data with ABPM have shown a linear association between BP and mortality even in HD patients, similar to the general population. Supporting this, the results of meta-analysis have shown a clear benefit of BP reduction in HD patients. Therefore, further research is needed to determine the optimal target BP in the dialysis population, and for now, an individualized approach is appropriate, with particular emphasis on avoiding excessively low BP. Maintaining euvolemia is of paramount importance for BP control in dialysis patients. Patient heterogeneity and the lack of comparative evidence preclude the recommendation of one class of medication over another for all patients. Recently, however, β-blockers could be considered as a first-line therapy in dialysis patients, as they can reduce sympathetic overactivity and left ventricular hypertrophy, which contribute to the high incidence of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Several studies with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have also reported promising results in reducing mortality in dialysis patients. However, safety issues such as hyperkalemia or hypotension should be further evaluated before their use.

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended by guidelines as first-line antihypertensive therapies in the general population or in patients with earlier stages of kidney disease. However, the cardioprotective benefit of these agents among patients on dialysis remains uncertain.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases from inception through February 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ACEIs/ARBs relative to placebo or no add-on treatment in patients receiving dialysis. RCTs were eligible if they assessed fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events as a primary efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

We identified five RCTs involving 1582 dialysis patients. Compared with placebo or no add-on treatment, the use of ACEIs/ARBs was not associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events {risk ratio [RR] 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.11]}. Furthermore, there was no benefit in cardiovascular mortality [RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59-1.14)] and all-cause mortality [RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.15)]. These results were consistent when the included RCTs were stratified by subgroups, including hypertension, ethnicity, sample size, duration of follow-up and quality.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis showed that among patients on dialysis, the use of ACEIs/ARBs is not associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality as compared with placebo or no add-on treatment.

Emerging Evidence on Coronary Heart Disease Screening in Kidney and Liver Transplantation Candidates: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the American Society of Transplantation

Coronary heart disease is an important source of mortality and morbidity among kidney transplantation and liver transplantation candidates and recipients and is driven by traditional and nontraditional risk factors related to end-stage organ disease. In this scientific statement, we review evidence from the past decade related to coronary heart disease screening and management for kidney and liver transplantation candidates. Coronary heart disease screening in asymptomatic kidney and liver transplantation candidates has not been demonstrated to improve outcomes but is common in practice. Risk stratification algorithms based on the presence or absence of clinical risk factors and physical performance have been proposed, but a high proportion of candidates still meet criteria for screening tests. We suggest new approaches to pretransplantation evaluation grounded on the presence or absence of known coronary heart disease and cardiac symptoms and emphasize multidisciplinary engagement, including involvement of a dedicated cardiologist. Noninvasive functional screening methods such as stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy have limited accuracy, and newer noninvasive modalities, especially cardiac computed tomography-based tests, are promising alternatives. Emerging evidence such as results of the 2020 International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease trial emphasizes the vital importance of guideline-directed medical therapy in managing diagnosed coronary heart disease and further questions the value of revascularization among asymptomatic kidney transplantation candidates. Optimizing strategies to disseminate and implement best practices for medical management in the broader end-stage organ disease population should be prioritized to improve cardiovascular outcomes in these populations.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Concomitant End-Stage Kidney Disease

Background

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a chronic disease with substantial mortality. Management of HFrEF has seen significant breakthrough after the launch of neprilysin inhibitor. The PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impacton Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial showed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces HFrEF mortality and the heart failure hospitalization rate. However, in patients with advanced kidney disease, who have the highest prevalence of heart failure, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan remains uncertain. We aim to study the efficiency of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with end‐stage kidney disease.

Methods and Results

Heart function was screened by echocardiogram among all patients with end‐stage kidney disease in 2 hospitals. Patients with HFrEF received either sacubitril/valsartan or conventional treatment. Fifteen echocardiographic parameters were compared before and after treatment. After 1‐year sacubitril/valsartan treatment, parameters of systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction 31.3% to 45.1%, P<0.0001; left ventricular end‐systolic volume 95.7 to 70.1 mL, P=0.006; left ventricular internal diameter at end‐systole phase 47.2 to 40.1 mm, P=0.005), and diastolic (E/A ratio 1.3 to 0.8, P=0.009; E/Med e' ratio 25.3 to 18.8, P=0.010) function improved in patients with HFrEF and end‐stage kidney disease. These parameters were unchanged in the conventional treatment group. Serum potassium did not increase in the sacubitril/valsartan group.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan improves left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in patients with HFrEF and end‐stage kidney disease.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAS) Inhibitors May Suppress the Prevalence of Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD) in Elderly, Chronic Hemodialysis Patients

According to the hypertension guidelines, calcium antagonists are recommended as antihypertensive drugs for Stage 5 of chronic kidney disease (CKDG5) and late elderly patients, whereas renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitors (RASi) are not recommended. We screened elderly CKDG5D patients at a single outpatient maintenance hemodialysis center for the progression of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) using the ankle-brachial index (ABI) and skin perfusion pressure (SPP) tests, as well as logistic regression analysis, to determine the association between PAD and the treatment with RASi and the association between the treatment with RASi and the need for hospitalization within one year of observation. With the presence of PAD as the explanatory variable and the presence of RASi as the objective variable, the odds ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 3.82) in univariate analysis. After adjusting for confounding factors (age, gender, and hypertension), the odds ratio in multivariate analysis was 0.83 (95% CI 0.46 to 6.08). The presence or absence of PAD was significantly associated with an odds ratio of 3.24 (p = .04, 95% CI 1.0 to 10.25) and 4.63 (p = .026, 95% CI 1.20 to 17.84) in univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively, when the outcome was hospitalization at one year, regardless of the presence or absence of RASi. However, in univariate analysis, the odds ratio was 1.23 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.82) with RASi status as the explanatory variable and one-year hospitalization as the objective variable. After adjusting for confounders, the odds ratio in multivariate analysis was 0.83 (95% CI 0.46 to 6.08). Although further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to establish the evidence, our results suggest that RASi treatment may have a suppressive effect on the prevalence of PAD and the need for hospitalization in elderly CKDG5 dialysis (CKDG5D) patients.

The Effect of FGF23 on Cardiac Hypertrophy Is Not Mediated by Systemic Renin-Angiotensin- Aldosterone System in Hemodialysis

Fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) is elevated in patients with chronic kidney disease and contributes to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The aim of the analysis was to determine whether this effect is mediated by the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in hemodialysis. Serum samples from 62 randomized hemodialysis patients with LVH were analyzed for plasma renin activity (PRA-S), angiotensin II (AngII), and metabolites, angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) and aldosterone using a high throughput mass spectrometry assay. Compared to healthy individuals, levels of the RAAS parameters PRA-S, AngII and aldosterone were generally lower [median (IQR) PRA-S 130 (46–269) vs. 196 (98, 238) pmol/L; AngII 70 (28–157) vs. 137 (76, 201) pmol/L; Aldosterone 130 (54, 278) vs. 196 (98, 238) pmol/L]. We did not find an indication that the effect of FGF23 on LVH was mediated by RAAS parameters, with all estimated indirect effects virtually zero. Furthermore, FGF23 was not associated with RAAS parameter levels throughout the study. While there was a clear association between FGF23 levels and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) at the end of the study and in the FGF23 fold change and LVMI change analysis, no association between RAAS and LVMI was observed. Serum concentrations of PRA-S, AngII, and aldosterone were below the ranges measured in healthy controls suggesting that RAAS is not systemically activated in hemodialysis patients. The effect of FGF23 on LVMI was not mediated by systemic RAAS activity. These findings challenge the current paradigm of LVH progression and treatment with RAAS blockers in dialysis.

Blood Pressure and Stroke: A Review of Sex- and Ethnic/Racial-Specific Attributes to the Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Raised Blood Pressure

Raised blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, and its particular strong association with stroke is well established. Although systolic BP increases with age in both sexes, raised BP is more prevalent in males in early adulthood, overtaken by females at middle age, consistently across all ethnicities/races. However, there are clear regional differences on when females overtake males. Higher BP among males is observed until the seventh decade of life in high-income countries, compared with almost 3 decades earlier in low- and middle-income countries. Females and males tend to have different cardiovascular disease risk profiles, and many lifestyles also influence BP and cardiovascular disease in a sex-specific manner. Although no hypertension guidelines distinguish between sexes in BP thresholds to define or treat hypertension, observational evidence suggests that in terms of stroke risk, females would benefit from lower BP thresholds to the magnitude of 10 to 20 mm Hg. More randomized evidence is needed to determine if females have greater cardiovascular benefits from lowering BP and whether optimal BP is lower in females. Since 1990, the number of people with hypertension worldwide has doubled, with most of the increase occurring in low- and-middle-income countries where the greatest population growth was also seen. Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and South Asia have the lowest detection, treatment, and control rates. High BP has a more significant effect on the burden of stroke among Black and Asian individuals than Whites, possibly attributable to differences in lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and health system resources. Although pharmacological therapy is recommended differently in local guidelines, recommendations on lifestyle modification are often very similar (salt restriction, increased potassium intake, reducing weight and alcohol, smoking cessation). This overall enhanced understanding of the sex- and ethnic/racial-specific attributes to BP motivates further scientific discovery to develop more effective prevention and treatment strategies to prevent stroke in high-risk populations.

Long-term weight loss as a predictor of mortality in haemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Serial weight decrease can be a prognostic predictor in chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. We investigated the impact of long-term post-HD body weight (BW) changes on all-cause mortality among HD patients.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study and post-hoc analysis evaluated participants of a previous randomised controlled trial conducted between 2006 and 2011 who were followed up until 2018. Weight change slopes were generated with repeated measurements every 6 months during the trial for patients having ≥5 BW measurements. Participants were categorised into four groups based on quartiles of weight change slopes; the median weight changes per 6 months were -1.02 kg, -0.25 kg, +0.26 kg, and +0.86 kg. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate differences in subsequent survival among the four groups. BW trajectories were plotted with a backward time-scale and multilevel regression analysis to visualise the difference in BW trajectories between survivors and non-survivors.

RESULTS

Among the 461 patients, 404 were evaluated, and 168 (41.6%) died within a median follow-up period of 10.2 years. The Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for covariates and baseline BW showed that a higher rate of weight loss was associated with higher mortality. The hazard ratios were 2.02 (1.28-3.20), 1.77 (1.10-2.85), 1.00 (reference), and 1.11 (0.67-1.83) for the first, second, third (reference), and fourth quartiles, respectively. BW trajectories revealed a significant decrease in BW in non-survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Weight loss elucidated by serial BW measurements every 6 months is significantly associated with higher mortality among HD patients.

The effect of hyperkalemia and long inter-dialytic interval on morbidity and mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease, especially those receiving hemodialysis (HD), are at risk of hyperkalemia (HK). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of HK in patients with renal disease receiving HD and collate evidence on the effect of HK and differing HD patterns (i.e., long vs. short inter-dialytic intervals [LIDI and SIDI, respectively] in a thrice weekly schedule) on mortality.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted across six databases and selected conference proceedings by two independent reviewers up to September 2020. A hundred and two studies reporting frequency of HK, mortality, or cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in adult patients with acute, chronic or end-stage renal disease in receipt of HD were included. Narrative synthesis of results was undertaken with key findings presented in tables and figures.

RESULTS

Median prevalence of HK in patients with renal disease receiving HD was 21.6% and increased in patients receiving concomitant medications - mainly renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and potassium-sparing diuretics. Associations between elevated potassium levels and increased risk of both all-cause and CV mortality in the HD population were consistent across the included studies. In addition, there was a rise in all-cause and CV mortality on the day following LIDI compared with the day after the two SIDIs in patients on HD.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence identified in this systematic review indicates a relationship between HK and LIDI with mortality in patients with renal disease receiving HD, emphasizing the need for effective monitoring and management to control potassium levels both in emergency and chronic HD settings.

Sudden cardiac death in dialysis patients: different causes and management strategies

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) represents a major cause of death in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The precise estimate of its incidence is difficult to establish because studies on the incidence of SCD in ESKD are often combined with those related to sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurring during a haemodialysis (HD) session. The aim of the European Dialysis Working Group of ERA-EDTA was to critically review the current literature examining the causes of extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA in ESKD patients and potential management strategies to reduce the incidence of such events. Extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA represent different clinical situations and should be kept distinct. Regarding the problem, numerically less relevant, of patients affected by intradialysis SCA, some modifiable risk factors have been identified, such as a low concentration of potassium and calcium in the dialysate, and some advantages linked to the presence of automated external defibrillators in dialysis units have been documented. The problem of extra-dialysis SCD is more complex. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction associated with SCD is present only in a minority of cases occurring in HD patients. This is the proof that SCD occurring in ESKD has different characteristics compared with SCD occurring in patients with ischaemic heart disease and/or heart failure and not affected by ESKD. Recent evidence suggests that the fatal arrhythmia in this population may be due more frequently to bradyarrhythmias than to tachyarrhythmias. This fact may partly explain why several studies could not demonstrate an advantage of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in preventing SCD in ESKD patients. Electrolyte imbalances, frequently present in HD patients, could explain part of the arrhythmic phenomena, as suggested by the relationship between SCD and timing of the HD session. However, the high incidence of SCD in patients on peritoneal dialysis suggests that other risk factors due to cardiac comorbidities and uraemia per se may contribute to sudden mortality in ESKD patients.

Cardiovascular Protection With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Milestone Achieved

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular disease are intimately linked. They share major risk factors, including age, hypertension, and diabetes, and common pathogenetic mechanisms. Furthermore, reduced renal function and kidney injury documented with albuminuria are independent risk factors for cardiovascular events and mortality. In major renal outcome trials and subsequent meta-analyses in patients with CKD, ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and ARBs (angiotensin II receptor blockers) were shown to effectively retard CKD progression but not to significantly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. Thus, a high residual risk for cardiovascular disease progression under standard-of-care treatment is still present for patients with CKD. In contrast to the above, several outcome trials with SGLT-2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors and MRAs (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) clearly suggest that these agents, apart from nephroprotection, offer important cardioprotection in this population. This article discusses existing evidence on the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and MRAs on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD that open new roads in cardiovascular protection of this heavily burdened population.

Predictors of Survival in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A 10-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up Analysis

BACKGROUND

Risk factors of mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients have not yet been sufficiently evaluated. In particular, chronological transits and interactions of the impact of risk factors have rarely been described.

METHODS

This study is a post hoc analysis of the participants in the Olme-sartan Clinical Trial in Okinawan Patients under OKIDS (OCTOPUS) study conducted between June 2006 and June 2011. We additionally followed up on the prognosis of the participants until July 31, 2018. Standardized univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the influences of the participants' baseline characteristics on all-cause mortality. We also evaluated chronological changes in the impacts of risk factors, interactions among predictors, and the influence of missing values using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 469 original trial participants, 461 participants were evaluated. The median time of follow-up was 10.2 years. A total of 211 (45.8%) participants were deceased. The leading causes of death were infection (n = 72, 34.1%) and cardiovascular disease (n = 66, 31.3%). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed that the impact of diabetes mellitus, history of coronary intervention, and hypoalbuminemia were significant risk factors for mortality during the whole follow-up period. During the early follow-up period (≤3 years), standardized univariate Cox regression analyses revealed that history of amputation (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.61, p < 0.001), lower dry weight, higher cardiothoracic ratio, and lower potassium levels were statistically significant risks. In those who survived for longer than 3 years, a history of stroke (HR = 1.73, p = 0.006), higher systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium levels, and higher levels of hemoglobin, and serum phosphate were significant risks. We also observed a stable interaction between the impacts of serum phosphate and albumin on all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

In chronic hemodialysis patients, targets to improve the short-term prognosis and long-term prognosis are not equivalent. Hyperphosphatemia was a significant risk factor for the all-cause mortality among patients with normal serum albumin levels but not among patients with compromised albumin levels.

Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review of the Available Clinical-Trial Evidence

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP)-lowering with the use of antihypertensive drugs appears to protect the cardiovascular (CV) system in hemodialysis patients. However, the optimal treatment algorithm of hypertension remains elusive; extrapolation of clinical-trial evidence from the general population may not be optimal.

METHODS

For this narrative review, we searched the Medline/PubMed database (inception to August 01, 2019) to identify randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs on CV outcomes and mortality in patients on hemodialysis.

RESULTS

Randomized trials with angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensinreceptor- blockers (ARBs) failed to provide consistent cardioprotection. β-blockers may provide a more consistent CV benefit. Although some early clinical trials have shown that mineralocorticoid-receptorantagonists (MRAs) reduce CV mortality, the associated risk of hyperkalemia raises important safety concerns on the use of MRAs as add-on therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our first-line therapy of hypertension in hemodialysis is the assessment and management of dry-weight and optimization of dialysis prescription. Based on the available clinical-trial evidence, we prescribe atenolol 3 times/week after dialysis as the first-line pharmacological option of hypertension to our patients without specific indications for other agents. Long-acting dihydropyridines and ACEIs/ARBs are our second-line and third-line choices, respectively. We avoid using MRAs and await results from ongoing trials testing their safety and efficacy. In patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, randomized trials are clearly warranted in order to define BP targets and the comparative effectiveness of different antihypertensive drugs.

Association Between Implementation Of Novel Therapies And Improved Survival In Patients Starting Hemodialysis: The Swedish Renal Registry 2006-2015

BACKGROUND

The recent years have witnessed significant therapeutic advances for patients on hemodialysis. We evaluated temporal changes in treatments practices and survival rates among incident hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Observational study of patients initiating hemodialysis in Sweden 2006-2015. Trends of hemodialysis-related practices, medications, and routine laboratory biomarkers were evaluated. The incidence of death and major cardiovascular events (MACE) across calendar years were compared against the age-sex-matched general population. Via Cox regression, we explored whether adjustment for implementation of therapeutic advances modified observed survival and MACE risks.

RESULTS

Among 6,612 patients, age and sex were similar, but the burden of co-morbidities increased over time. The proportion of patients receiving treatment by hemodiafiltration, >3 sessions/week, lower ultrafiltration rate, and working fistulas increased progressively, as did use of non-calcium phosphate binders, cinacalcet, and vitamin D3. The standardized 1-year mortality decreased from 13.2% in 2006/07 to 11.1% in 2014/15. The risk of death decreased by 6% (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.99) every two years, and the risk of MACE by 4% (HR 0.96; 0.92-1.00). Adjustment for changes in treatment characteristics abrogated these associations (HR 1.00; 0.92-1.09 for death and 1.00; 0.94-1.06 for MACE). Compared with the general population, the risk of death declined from 6 times higher 2006/2007 [standardized incidence rate ratio, sIRR 6.0 (5.3-6.9)], to 5.6 higher 2014/15 [sIRR 5.57 (4.8-6.4)].

CONCLUSIONS

Gradual implementation of therapeutic advances over the last decade was associated with a parallel reduction in short-term risk of death and MACE among hemodialysis patients.

Oxidative Stress and Inflammation as Predictors of Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Hemodialysis Patients: The DREAM Cohort

Aim: Both oxidative stress and inflammation are involved in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The serum level of derivatives of reactive oxygen metabolites (d-ROMs) is a measure of the total amount of hydroperoxides serving as a marker of oxidative stress. We investigated whether d-ROMs could predict the clinical outcomes in hemodialysis patients and whether the associations of d-ROMs with the outcomes are independent of a marker of inflammation, C-reactive protein (CRP).

Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in hemodialysis patients. The key exposures were the serum levels of d-ROMs and CRP. The outcome measures were all-cause mortality and new CVD events.

Results: A total of 517 patients were analyzed. d-ROMs correlated positively with CRP. During follow-up for 5 years, 107 patients died, and 190 patients experienced new CVD events. In the Kaplan–Meier analyses, both higher d-ROMs and higher CRP levels predicted higher risks for mortality and CVD events. By Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders excluding CRP, d-ROMs exhibited a significant association with all-cause mortality, but this association was no longer significant after further adjustment for CRP. Using the same model, CRP exhibited a significant association with all-cause mortality, but this association was no longer significant after further adjustment for d-ROMs. When we analyzed new CVD events as the outcome, CRP was a significant predictor, whereas the level of d-ROMs was not.

Conclusions: Although d-ROMs predicted mortality and CVD events in unadjusted models, the associations of d-ROMs with these outcomes were not independent of CRP. Oxidative stress and inflammation appear to share common causal pathways.

Data from the ERA-EDTA Registry were examined for trends in excess mortality in European adults on kidney replacement therapy

The objective of this study was to investigate whether the improvement in survival seen in patients on kidney replacement therapy reflects the enhanced survival of the general population. Patient and general population statistics were obtained from the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry and the World Health Organization databases, respectively. Relative survival models were composed to examine trends over time in all-cause and cause-specific excess mortality, stratified by age and modality of kidney replacement therapy, and adjusted for sex, primary kidney disease and country. In total, 280,075 adult patients started kidney replacement therapy between 2002 and 2015. The excess mortality risk in these patients decreased by 16% per five years (relative excess mortality risk (RER) 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.84). This reflected a 14% risk reduction in dialysis patients (RER 0.86; 0.85-0.86), and a 16% increase in kidney transplant recipients (RER 1.16; 1.07-1.26). Patients on dialysis showed a decrease in excess mortality risk of 28% per five years for atheromatous cardiovascular disease as the cause of death (RER 0.72; 0.70-0.74), 10% for non-atheromatous cardiovascular disease (RER 0.90; 0.88-0.92) and 10% for infections (RER 0.90; 0.87-0.92). Kidney transplant recipients showed stable excess mortality risks for most causes of death, although it did worsen in some subgroups. Thus, the increase in survival in patients on kidney replacement therapy is not only due to enhanced survival in the general population, but also due to improved survival in the patient population, primarily in dialysis patients.

Taking a Step Further in Identifying Ideal Blood Pressure Range Among Hemodialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Background

Hypertension is one of the primary predictor of mortality among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on dialysis. However, there is no consensus on an ideal blood pressure range for this population.

Aims and Objective

To identify an ideal systolic blood pressure range based on optimal survival among ESRD patients on dialysis.

Method

A systematic search for clinical trials assessing the impact of different systolic blood pressure range on mortality among ESRD patients on hemodialysis was conducted through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All randomized control trials (RCTs) involving ESRD patients on hemodialysis with primary or secondary outcome of assessing the impact different systolic blood pressure range (< 140 and >140 mm Hg) on all-cause mortality were included. The quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Two researchers independently conducted eligibility assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third researcher when needed. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

A total of 1,787 research articles were identified during the initial search, after which six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to the Jadad scale, all six RCTs scored 3 points each for quality of reporting. Four RCTs employed pharmacological intervention while two RCTs assessed non-pharmacological intervention. Of the six RCTs, two studies were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of <140 mm Hg at the end of trial with a RR for reduction in mortality of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.3–1.07; P = 0.08). Four RCTs were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of >140 mm Hg at the end of trial, with the RR for reduction of mortality of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54–0.96; P = 0.003). Overall, pooled estimates of the six RCTs suggested the reduction in systolic blood pressure statistically reduce all cause of mortality (RR, 0.69%; 95% CI, 0.53–0.90; P = 0.006) among ESRD patients on hemodialysis.

Conclusion

Though not statically significant, the current study identifies <140 mm Hg as a promising blood pressure range for optimum survival among ESRD patients on hemodialysis. However, further studies are required to establish an ideal blood pressure range among hemodialysis patients.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019121102).

Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Blood pressure (BP) and volume control are critical components of dialysis care and have substantial impacts on patient symptoms, quality of life, and cardiovascular complications. Yet, developing consensus best practices for BP and volume control have been challenging, given the absence of objective measures of extracellular volume status and the lack of high-quality evidence for many therapeutic interventions. In February of 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a Controversies Conference titled Blood Pressure and Volume Management in Dialysis to assess the current state of knowledge related to BP and volume management and identify opportunities to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes among individuals receiving maintenance dialysis. Four major topics were addressed: BP measurement, BP targets, and pharmacologic management of suboptimal BP; dialysis prescriptions as they relate to BP and volume; extracellular volume assessment and management with a focus on technology-based solutions; and volume-related patient symptoms and experiences. The overarching theme resulting from presentations and discussions was that managing BP and volume in dialysis involves weighing multiple clinical factors and risk considerations as well as patient lifestyle and preferences, all within a narrow therapeutic window for avoiding acute or chronic volume-related complications. Striking this challenging balance requires individualizing the dialysis prescription by incorporating comorbid health conditions, treatment hemodynamic patterns, clinical judgment, and patient preferences into decision-making, all within local resource constraints.

Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used as a treatment for many cardiovascular diseases, but their safety has been called into question. The VALUE trial found an increased risk of myocardial infarction in participants receiving ARBs compared to other antihypertensive. The aim of the meta-analysis was to synthetize the available evidence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and elucidate if ARBs increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify RCTs that assessed the safety of ARBs. Titles and abstracts of all papers were independently screened by two authors. Data extraction and quality assessment were also performed independently. The relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were pooled using the IVhet model. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of ARBs by restricting the analysis to different participants' characteristics.

RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs comprising of 170,794 participants were included in the analysis. The pooled estimates revealed that ARBs do not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.00; 95%CI 0.97-1.04), myocardial infarction (RR 1.01; 95%CI 0.96-1.06), and stroke (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.83-1.01). The sensitivity analysis did not yield a particular group of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular events with ARBs. Risk of all-cause mortality and stroke decreased with ARB when the proportion of smokers in a population was < 25% (RR 0.91; 95%CI 0.84-0.98) and in females (RR 0.76; 95%CI 0.68-0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ARBs do not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events and are safe for use in patients.

Uncertainties in BP management in dialysis patients

Hypertension in dialysis patients is extremely common. In this article, we review the current evidence for blood pressure (BP) goals in hemodialysis patients, and consider the effectiveness of interventions by which BP may be lowered, including manipulation of dietary and dialysate sodium; optimization of extracellular water; prolongation of dialysis time; and antihypertensive medication. Although two meta-analyses suggest lowering BP using antihypertensive drugs might be beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events and mortality, there are insufficient rigorously designed trials in hypertensive hemodialysis populations to determine preferred antihypertensive drug classes. We suggest aiming for predialysis systolic BP between 130 and 159 mm Hg, while at the same time acknowledge the significant limitations of the data upon which it is based. We conclude by summarizing current knowledge as regards management of hypertension in the peritoneal dialysis population and make recommendations for future research in this field.

Blood pressure targets and pharmacotherapy for hypertensive patients on hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is highly prevalent in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and is often not well controlled. Blood pressure (BP) levels before and after hemodialysis have a U-shaped relationship with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Although antihypertensive drugs are recommended for patients in whom BP cannot be controlled appropriately by non-pharmacological interventions, large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials are lacking.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the pharmacotherapy used in hypertensive patients on dialysis, primarily focusing on reports published since 2000. An electronic search of MEDLINE was conducted using relevant key search terms, including 'hypertension', 'pharmacotherapy', 'dialysis', 'kidney disease', and 'antihypertensive drug'. Systematic and narrative reviews and original investigations were retrieved in our research.

EXPERT OPINION

When a drug is administered to patients on dialysis, the comorbidities and characteristics of each drug, including its dialyzability, should be considered. Pharmacological lowering of BP in hypertensive patients on hemodialysis is associated with improvements in mortality. β-blockers should be considered first-line agents and calcium channel blockers as second-line therapy. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors have not shown superiority to other antihypertensive drugs for patients on hemodialysis.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers or both in incident end-stage renal disease patients without cardiovascular disease: a propensity-matched longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients even without known cardiovascular (CV) disease have high mortality rates. Whether neurohormonal blockade treatments improve outcomes in this population remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs), β-blockers or both in all-cause mortality rates in incident ESRD patients without known CV disease starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) between 2009 and 2015 in the nationwide Réseau Epidémiologie et Information en Néphrologie registry.

METHODS

Patients with known CV disease and those who started emergency RRT, stopped RRT or died within 6 months were excluded. Propensity score matching models were used. The main outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 13 741 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up time was 24 months. When compared with matched controls without antihypertensive treatment, treatment with ACEi/ARBs, β-blockers and ACEi/ARBs + β-blockers was associated with an event-rate reduction per 100 person-years: ACEi/ARBs 7.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-8.2] versus matched controls 9.5 (8.8-10.1) [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.84)], β-blocker 7.1 (6.6-7.7) versus matched controls 9.5 (8.5-10.2) [HR 0.72 (0.65-0.80)] and ACEi/ARBs + β-blockers 5.8 (5.4-6.4) versus matched controls 7.8 (7.2-8.4) [HR 0.68 (0.61-0.77)].

CONCLUSIONS

Neurohormonal blocking therapies were associated with death rate reduction in incident ESRD without CV disease. Whether these relationships are causal will require randomized controlled trials.

Management of End-stage Renal Disease Associated with Systemic Rheumatic Diseases

The outcomes of rheumatic diseases (RDs) have improved over the past decades. However, a significant proportion of the patients still suffer from end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and have to bear the burden of hemodialysis. It is crucial to prevent patients with RDs from developing ESRD from viewpoints of medicine and medical economics. For those who already have ESRD, it is important to improve vial prognosis and quality of life through appropriate management of disease activity and comorbidities related to ESRD. Thus, rheumatologists and nephrologists need to recognize risk factors associated with progression to ESRD along with their appropriate management. Although the activity of most RDs tends to decrease after initiation of hemodialysis, disease activity may still increase, and recognizing how to appropriately use immunosuppressive agents even after the development of ESRD is crucial. The treatment of RDs needs extra attention as hydroxychloroquine requires more frequent monitoring for adverse drug reactions; therapeutic drug monitoring is necessary for mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine A, and tacrolimus; cyclophosphamide and azathioprine need dose adjustments; methotrexate and bucillamine are contraindicated in patients with ESRD; leflunomide and sulfasalazine do not require significant dose reduction and iguratimod should be carefully administered. The pharmacokinetics of biological agents such as rituximab or belimumab are not affected by ESRD, and dose adjustments are not necessary. Collaboration between rheumatologists and nephrologists is needed more than ever and is expected to produce a complementary effect and achieve better outcomes in clinical settings, although this cooperation has not always been conducted appropriately.

Management of Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors in CKD: What Are the Data?

Patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) are 10 times more likely to die of cardiovascular (CV) diseases than the general population, and dialysis-dependent patients are at even higher risk. Although traditional CV risk factors are highly prevalent in individuals with CKD, these patients were often excluded from studies targeting modification of these risks. Although treatment of hypertension is beneficial in CKD, the best target blood pressure has not been established. Trial data showed that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade may prevent CV events in patients with CKD. The risks of aspirin may equal the benefits in NDD-CKD samples, and there are no trials testing aspirin in dialysis-dependent patients. Lipid-lowering therapy improves CV outcomes in NDD-CKD, but not in dialysis-dependent patients. Strict glycemic control prevents CV events in nonalbuminuric individuals, but showed no benefit in those with baseline albuminuria with albumin excretion > 300mg/g, and there are no data in dialysis-dependent patients. Data for lifestyle modifications, such as weight loss, physical activity, and smoking cessation, are mostly observational and extrapolated from non-CKD samples. This comprehensive review summarizes the best existing evidence and current clinical guidelines for modification of traditional risk factors for the prevention of CV events in patients with CKD and identifies knowledge gaps.

Blood pressure control in conventional hemodialysis

Hypertension among patients on hemodialysis is common, difficult to diagnose and often inadequately controlled. Although specific blood pressure (BP) targets in this particular population are not yet established, meta-analyses of randomized trials showed that deliberate BP-lowering with antihypertensive drugs improves clinical outcomes in hemodialysis patients. BP-lowering in these individuals should initially utilize nonpharmacological strategies aiming to control sodium and volume overload. Accordingly, restricting dietary sodium intake, eliminating intradialytic sodium gain via individualized dialysate sodium prescription, optimally assessing and managing dry-weight and providing a sufficient duration of dialysis are first-line treatment considerations to control BP. If BP remains uncontrolled despite the adequate management of volume, antihypertensive therapy is the next consideration. Contrary to nonhemodialysis populations, emerging clinical-trial evidence suggests that among those on hemodialysis, β-blockers are more effective than agents blocking the renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) in reducing BP levels and protecting from serious adverse cardiovascular complications. Accordingly, β-blockade is our first-line approach in pharmacotherapy of hypertension. Long-acting calcium-channel-blockers and RAS-blockers are our next considerations, taking into account the comorbidities and the overall risk profile of each individual patient. Additional research efforts, mainly randomized trials, are clearly warranted in order to elucidate aspects of management that remain elusive in hypertensive dialysis patients.

Effect of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade on Outcomes in Patients With ESRD: A Prospective Cohort Study in Korea

Introduction

Conflicting results still exist regarding the benefit of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade on clinical outcomes in dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of RAAS blockade on survival in Korean patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

Methods

Our analysis was based on the data of 5223 patients enrolled from the Clinical Research Center for ESRD, a nationwide prospective observational cohort. Multivariate Cox regression was applied for risk factor analysis with the cumulative duration of RAAS blockade use as time-varying covariate. The risks for mortality from all causes and major cardiovascular event-free survival were estimated.

Results

Compared to the control group, patients in the RAAS group were younger but had a higher proportion of diabetes mellitus, had higher systolic blood pressure, required a greater number of prescribed antihypertensive drugs, and had a longer dialysis duration. On multivariate time-varying Cox regression analysis, the RAAS group with cumulative duration of >90 days was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality from all causes after adjustment for confounding (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-0.58, P < 0.0001). Major cardiovascular event-free survival was also better for the RAAS group than for the control group on multivariate analysis (HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.20-0.37, P < 0.0001), considering the cumulative duration of RAAS blockade use.

Conclusion

In Korean patients with ESRD, we reported a specific benefit of RAAS blockade in improving overall survival after adjustment for confounding factors from real-world data.

DOPPS data suggest a possible survival benefit of renin angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and other antihypertensive medications for hemodialysis patients

The benefits of renin angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are well-established in the general population, particularly among those with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), or coronary artery disease (CAD). However, conflicting evidence from trials and concerns about hyperkalemia limit RAASi use in hemodialysis patients, relative to other antihypertensive agents, including beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. Therefore, we investigated prescription patterns and associations with mortality for RAASi and other antihypertensive agents using data from the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Cox regression was used to estimate the effect of the prescription of RAASi and other antihypertensive agents at study entry on mortality in 11,421 incident (120 days or less) hemodialysis and 37,124 prevalent (over 120 days) hemodialysis patients from DOPPS phases 2-5 (2002-2015). Over 95% of RAASi were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. RAASi prevalence was 39% and varied minimally by CHF and CAD. The adjusted hazard ratio for RAASi (vs. no RAASi) was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.99) among incident and 0.94 (0.90-0.99) among prevalent hemodialysis patients, with no convincing evidence of interaction with diabetes, CAD or CHF. Inverse associations with mortality were also observed for beta blockers and calcium channel blockers, and were stronger for angiotensin receptor blockers than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, but this latter finding requires further study. Thus, our observations suggest a relatively small survival benefit of RAASi and other antihypertensive agents in hemodialysis patients, though randomized prospective studies are needed to potentially change prescribing criteria.

Blood pressure targets for hemodialysis patients

The association between blood pressure (BP) and mortality is unique in hemodialysis patients compared with that in the general population. This is because of an altered benefit-risk balance associated with BP reduction in these patients. An adequately designed study comparing BP targets in hemodialysis patients remains to be conducted. The current evidence available to guide dialysis providers regarding treatment strategies for managing hypertension in this population is limited to large observational studies and small randomized controlled trials. In this opinion article, we review these data and discuss the key points regarding BP management for hemodialysis patients. Our aim is to provide a practical opinion regarding BP targets that nephrologists can incorporate into clinical practice, with a focus on moving away from dialysis unit BPs and focusing on out-of-dialysis unit BPs.

Cardioprotective Exercise and Pharmacologic Interventions as Complementary Antidotes to Cardiovascular Disease

Exercise and pharmacologic therapies to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease have advanced largely through independent efforts. Understanding of first-line drug therapies, findings from preclinical animal studies, and the need for research initiatives related to complementary cardioprotective exercise-pharma interventions are reviewed from the premise that contemporary cardioprotective therapies must include adjunctive exercise and lifestyle interventions in addition to pharmacologic agents.

Interactive Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers or Their Combination on Survival of Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Does the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers individually or as a combination confer a survival benefit in hemodialysis patients? The answer to this question is yet unclear.

METHODS

We performed a case-cohort study using data from the Mineral and Bone Disorder Outcomes Study for Japanese CKD stage 5D patients (MBD-5D), a 3-year multicenter prospective case-cohort study, including 8,229 hemodialysis patients registered from 86 facilities in Japan. All patients had secondary hyperparathyroidism, a condition defined as a parathyroid hormone level ≥180 pg/mL and/or receiving vitamin D receptor activators. We compared all-cause mortality rates between those receiving ACEI, ARB, and their combination and non-users with interaction testing. We used marginal structural Poisson regression (causal model) to estimate the causal effect and interaction adjusted for possible time-dependent confounding. Cardiovascular mortality was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 3,762 randomly sampled subcohort patients, those taking ACEI, ARB, and their combination at baseline accounted for 4.0, 31.6, and 3.8%, respectively. Over 3 years, 1,226 all-cause and 462 cardiovascular deaths occurred. Compared to non-users, ARB-alone users had a lower all-cause mortality rate (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76), whereas ACEI-alone users showed a statistically similar rate (aIRR 1.01, 95% CI 0.57-1.77). On the contrary, combination users had a greater mortality rate (aIRR 2.56, 95% CI 1.22-5.37), showing significant interaction (p = 0.03). Analysis for cardiovascular mortality showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

Among hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism, unlike ACEI use, ARB use was associated with greater survival than non-use. Conversely, combination use was associated with greater mortality. Controlled trials are warranted to verify the causality factors of these associations.

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.

RAS Inhibitor Is Not Associated With Cardiovascular Benefits in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis in Japan

Definitive evidence of whether renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition is beneficial on cardiovascular events (CVE) among patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) is lacking. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of RAS inhibitor usage with CVEs in patients enrolled in the Dialysis Outcomes Practice Pattern Study in Japan (J-DOPPS). Association of RAS inhibitor prescription with outcomes including all-cause death, death caused by CVE, and hospitalization due to cardiac failure was investigated by using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Of the 3848 patients enrolled, 1784 (45%) patients were treated by RAS inhibitors. After adjusting for potential cofounders by Cox proportional hazards models, we found a statistically insignificant but positive association of RAS inhibitor usage with death caused by CVE (HR: 1.46, 95%CI: 0.96-2.23, P = 0.08). Similar results were observed in the association of RAS inhibitor with all-cause death, hospitalization due to cardiac failure, and hospitalization due to CV disease (HR for all-cause death: 1.24, 95%CI: 0.84-1.48, P = 0.28, HR for hospitalization due to cardiac failure: 1.24, 95%CI: 0.84-1.81, P = 0.28, and HR for hospitalization due to CV disease: 1.20, 95%CI: 0.95-1.51, P = 0.13). Sensitivity analyses using propensity scores gave similar results. RAS inhibition did not show favorable association with CVEs suggesting that RAS inhibition alone was insufficient to reduce the risk of CV complications in patients undergoing HD. Some strategies in addition to RAS inhibition may be needed to protect against CVEs in this population.

The Combination of Beta Blockers and Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers Improves Survival in Incident Hemodialysis Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies suggest that the prognosis of hypertensive dialysis patients can be improved by using antihypertensive drug therapy, it is unknown whether the prescription of a particular class or combination of antihypertensive drugs is beneficial during hemodialysis.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score matching study to compare the effectiveness of various classes of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular (CV) mortality in 2518 incident hemodialysis patients in Spain. The patients had initially received antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (728 patients), a ß-blocker (679 patients), antihypertensive drugs other than a RAS blocker or a ß-blocker (787 patients), or the combination of a ß-blocker and a RAS inhibitor (324 patients). These patients were followed for a maximum of 5 years (median: 2.21 yr; range: 1.04-3.34 yr).

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline CV risk covariates, no significant differences were observed in the risk of CV mortality between patients taking a RAS blocker and patients treated with ß-blocker-based antihypertensive therapy. The combination of a RAS blocker with a ß-blocker was associated with better CV survival than either agent alone (RAS blocker: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.69; ß-blocker: HR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.01-2.50; antihypertensive medication other than a RAS blocker or ß-blocker: HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08-2.58).

DISCUSSION

Our data suggested that the combination of a RAS blocker and a ß-blocker could improve survival in hemodialysis patients. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm the beneficial effects of this combination of antihypertensive drugs in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on cardiovascular events and residual renal function in dialysis patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reducing risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and preserving kidney function in patients with chronic kidney disease is well-documented. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in dialysis patients is still a controversial issue.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Wanfang for randomized trials. The relative risk (RR) reductions were calculated with a random-effects model. Major cardiovascular events, changes in GFR and drug-related adverse events were analyzed.

Results

Eleven trials included 1856 participants who were receiving dialysis therapy. Compared with placebo or other active agents groups, ARB therapy reduced the risk of heart failure events by 33% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.93) with similar decrement in blood pressure in dialysis patients. Indirect comparison suggested that fewer cardiovascular events happened during treatment with ARB (0.77, 0.63 to 0.94). The results indicated no significant differences between the two treatment regimens with regard to frequency of myocardial infarction (1.0, 0.45 to 2.22), stroke (1.16, 0.69 to 1.96), cardiovascular death (0.89, 0.64 to 1.26) and all-cause mortality (0.94, 0.75 to 1.17). Five studies reported the renoprotective effect and revealed that ACEI/ARB therapy significantly slowed the rate of decline in both residual renal function (MD 0.93 mL/min/1.73 m², 0.38 to 1.47 mL/min/1.73 m²) and urine volume (MD 167 ml, 95% CI 21 ml to 357 ml). No difference in drug-related adverse events was observed in both treatment groups.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that ACE-Is/ARBs therapy decreases the loss of residual renal function, mainly for patients with peritoneal dialysis. Overall, ACE-Is and ARBs do not reduce cardiovascular events in dialysis patients, however, treatment with ARB seems to reduce cardiovascular events including heart failure. ACE-Is and ARBs do not induce an extra risk of side effects.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0605-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 (ESRD) treated with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, hypertension is common and often poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) recordings obtained before or after haemodialysis display a J- or U-shaped association with cardiovascular events and survival, but this most likely reflects the low accuracy of these measurements and the peculiar haemodynamic setting related to dialysis treatment. Elevated BP detected 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 apnoea and the use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents may also be involved. Non-pharmacologic interventions targeting sodium and volume excess are fundamental for hypertension control in this population. If BP remains elevated after appropriate treatment of sodium and 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.

Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers for major renal outcomes in patients with diabetes: A 15-year cohort study

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are considered to have similar renoprotective effects; so far there has been no consensus about their priorities. This study aimed to compare ACEIs and ARBs for major renal outcomes and survival in a 15-year cohort of adults with diabetes.

METHODS

This study utilized Taiwan's medical and pharmacy claims data in the Longitudinal Cohort of Diabetes Patients. The primary outcome was long-term dialysis, and secondary outcomes were hospitalization for acute kidney injury, hospitalization for hyperkalemia, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and non-cardiovascular death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes comparing ACEIs with ARBs. We conducted subgroup analyses and interaction tests among patients with different age and comorbid diseases.

RESULTS

A total of 34,043 patients received ACEIs and 23,772 patients received ARBs. No differences were found for primary or secondary outcomes in the main analyses. ACEIs showed significantly lower hazard than ARBs for long-term dialysis among patients with cardiovascular disease (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, interaction P = 0.003) or chronic kidney disease (0.81, 0.71-0.93, interaction P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses show similar effects of ACEIs and ARBs in patients with diabetes. However, ACEIs might provide additional renoprotective effects among patients who have cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients initiating peritoneal dialysis

Background

Data on the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) are limited. We investigated the association between ACEI/ARB use and CV outcomes in patients initiating PD.

Methods

In this observational cohort study, we identified from the United States Renal Data System all adult patients who initiated PD from 2007 to 2011 and participated in Medicare Part D, a federal prescription drug benefits program, for the first 90 days of dialysis. Patients who filled a prescription for an ACEI or ARB in those 90 days were considered users. We applied Cox regression to an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the combined outcome of death, ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) and each outcome individually.

Results

Among 4879 patients, 2063 (42%) used an ACEI/ARB. Patients were followed up for a median of 1.2 years. We recorded 1771 events, for a composite rate of 25 events per 100 person-years. ACEI/ARB use (versus nonuse) was associated with a reduced risk of the composite outcome {HR 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.93]}, all-cause mortality [HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.92)] and CV death [HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.87)], but not MI [HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.69-1.12)] or ischemic stroke [HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.79-1.43)]. Results were similar in as-treated analyses. In a subgroup analysis, we did not find any effect modification by residual renal function.

Conclusions

ACEI/ARB use is common in patients initiating PD and is associated with a lower risk of fatal CV outcomes.

The effectiveness and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition or receptor blockade in vascular diseases in patients with hemodialysis

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are on hemodialysis have high risk of vascular diseases. Our study sought to examine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) could reduce the frequencies of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients receiving hemodialysis using the medication possession ratio (MPR) method of analysis.This retrospective cohort study identified cases of ESRD with dialysis from the National Health Insurance Research Database between 1999 and 2006, and used Cox-regression methods to evaluate risk of poor outcomes. Primary outcomes, including death from any cause, and secondary outcomes, including admission for stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure, were examined.Compared to the nonuser group, the adjusted HRs for mortality of the nonadherence group and the adherence group were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.86-1.13), respectively. Cardiovascular events were more frequent in patients with ESRD receiving ACEIs /ARBs than in nonusers. Compared with nonusers, the hazard of secondary outcome significantly increased in the nonadherence group or adherence group in 10 years follow-up.Compared with patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, patients on hemodialysis may not experience the same cardiovascular and cerebrovascular benefits from ACEIs/ARBs use.

Sudden Cardiac Death Among Hemodialysis Patients

Hemodialysis patients carry a large burden of cardiovascular disease; most onerous is the high risk for sudden cardiac death. Defining sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and understanding its pathogenesis are challenging, but inferences from the existing literature reveal differences between sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and the general population. Vascular calcifications and left ventricular hypertrophy may play a role in the pathophysiology of sudden cardiac death, whereas traditional cardiovascular risk factors seem to have a more muted effect. Arrhythmic triggers also differ in this group as compared to the general population, with some arising uniquely from the hemodialysis procedure. Combined, these factors may alter the types of terminal arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients, having important implications for prevention strategies. This review highlights current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors for sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients. We then examine strategies for prevention, including the use of specific cardiac medications and device-based therapies such as implantable defibrillators. We also discuss dialysis-specific prevention strategies, including minimizing exposure to low potassium and calcium dialysate concentrations, extending dialysis treatment times or adding sessions to avoid rapid ultrafiltration, and lowering dialysate temperature.

Medication adherence in randomized controlled trials evaluating cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in dialysis patients: A systematic review

Background

Medication non-adherence is common among renal dialysis patients. High degrees of non-adherence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to failure to detect a true treatment effect. Cardio-protective pharmacological interventions have shown no consistent benefit in RCTs involving dialysis patients. Whether non-adherence contributes to this lack of efficacy is unknown. We aimed to investigate how medication adherence and drug discontinuation were assessed, reported and addressed in RCTs, evaluating cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in dialysis patients.

Methods

Electronic database searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE & Cochrane CENTRAL for RCTs published between 2005–2015, evaluating self-administered medications, in adult dialysis patients, which reported clinical cardiovascular or mortality endpoints, as primary or secondary outcomes. Study characteristics, outcomes, methods of measuring and reporting adherence, and data on study drug discontinuation were analyzed.

Results

Of the 642 RCTs in dialysis patients, 22 trials (12 placebo controlled), which included 19,322 patients, were eligible. The trialed pharmacological interventions included anti-hypertensives, phosphate binders, lipid-lowering therapy, cardio-vascular medications, homocysteine lowering therapy, fish oil and calcimimetics. Medication adherence was reported in five trials with a mean of 81% (range: 65–92%) in the intervention arm and 84.5% (range: 82–87%) in the control arm. All the trials that reported adherence yielded negative study outcomes for the intervention. Study-drug discontinuation was reported in 21 trials (mean 33.2%; 95% CI, 22.0 to 44.5, in intervention and 28.8%; 95% CI, 16.8 to 40.8, in control). Trials with more than 20% study drug discontinuation, more often yielded negative study outcomes (p = 0.018). Non-adherence was included as a contributor to drug discontinuation in some studies, but the causes of discontinuation were not reported consistently between studies, and non-adherence was listed under different categories, thereby potentiating the misclassification of adherence.

Conclusions

Reporting of medication adherence and study-drug discontinuation in RCTs investigating cardiovascular or mortality endpoints in dialysis patients are inconsistent, making it difficult to compare studies and evaluate their impact on outcomes. Recommendations for consistent reporting of non-adherence and causes of drug discontinuation in RCTs will therefore help to assess their impact on clinical outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0449-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiovascular impact in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: Clinical management considerations

Patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis develop both structural and functional cardiovascular abnormalities. Despite improvement of dialysis technology, cardiovascular mortality of this population remains high. The pathophysiological mechanisms of these changes are complex and not well understood. It has been postulated that several non-traditional, uremic-related risk factors, especially the long-term uremic state, which may affect the cardiovascular system. There are many cardiovascular changes that occur in chronic kidney disease including left ventricular hypertrophy, myocardial fibrosis, microvascular disease, accelerated atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis. These structural and functional changes in patients receiving chronic dialysis make them more susceptible to myocardial ischemia. Hemodialysis itself may adversely affect the cardiovascular system due to non-physiologic fluid removal, leading to hemodynamic instability and initiation of systemic inflammation. In the past decade there has been growing awareness that pathophysiological mechanisms cause cardiovascular dysfunction in patients on chronic dialysis, and there are now pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies that may improve the poor quality of life and high mortality rate that these patients experience.

Efficacy of Losartan in the management of Post-Dialysis Euvolemic Hypertension (HELD-Trial): A Single-Blind Randomized Control Trial

To assess the effectiveness of losartan 50 mg on post dialysis euvolemic hypertensive patients against standard antihypertensive pharmacotherapy. A multicentre, prospective, randomized, single-blind trial was conducted to assess the effect of losartan 50 mg every other day (EOD), once a morning (OM) among post-dialysis euvolemic hypertensive patients. Covariate-adaptive randomization was used to allocate participants to a standard or treatment arm, and they were followed up for eight weeks. Pre-, intra- and post-dialysis session blood pressure (BP) measurements were recorded along with any adverse events. A total of 88 patients were randomized into standard (n = 44) and treatment arms (n = 44) and were followed for a period of 8 weeks. In the standard group, the mean post-dialysis blood pressure dropped by 0.3 mmHg by the end of the 8^th week. However the treatment arm reported a drop of 2.4 mmHg of BP drop during the 8-week trial period. Analysis suggests that there was a significant difference in blood pressure readings at the end of 8 weeks among patients treated with losartan (P < 0.001). However, no such statistical association was observed in the standard arm (P 0.75). A slow, steady significant decline in post-dialysis BP was observed among euvolemic hypertensive patients that were treated with losartan 50 mg.