Intensive Hemodialysis Preserved Cardiac injury

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Cardiovascular Benefits of Extended-Time Nocturnal Hemodialysis

Hemodialysis (HD) remains the most utilized treatment for End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) globally, mainly as conventional HD administered in 4 h sessions thrice weekly. Despite advances in HD delivery, patients with ESKD carry a heavy cardiovascular morbidity and mortality burden. This is associated with cardiac remodeling, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), myocardial stunning, hypertension, decreased heart rate variability, sleep apnea, coronary calcification and endothelial dysfunction. Therefore, intensive HD regimens closer to renal physiology were developed. They include longer, more frequent dialysis or both. Among them, Nocturnal Hemodialysis (NHD), carried out at night while asleep, provides efficient dialysis without excessive interference with daily activities. This regimen is closer to the physiology of the native kidneys. By providing increased clearance of small and middle molecular weight molecules, NHD can ameliorate uremic symptoms, control hyperphosphatemia and improve quality of life by allowing a liberal diet and free time during the day. Lastly, it improves reproductive biology leading to successful pregnancies. Conversion from conventional to NHD is followed by improved blood pressure control with fewer medications, regression of LVH, improved LV function, improved sleep apnea, and stabilization of coronary calcifications. These beneficial effects have been associated, among others, with better extracellular fluid volume control, improved endothelial- dependent vasodilation, decreased total peripheral resistance, decreased plasma norepinephrine levels and restoration of heart rate variability. Some of these effects represent improvements in outcomes used as surrogates of hard outcomes related to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this review, we consider the cardiovascular effects of NHD.

Imaging of Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: Current Limitations and Future Possibilities

Cardiovascular disease in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is driven by a different set of processes than in the general population. These processes lead to pathological changes in cardiac structure and function that include the development of left ventricular hypertrophy and left ventricular dilatation and the development of myocardial fibrosis. Reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy has been the established goal of many interventional trials in patients with chronic kidney disease, but a recent systematic review has questioned whether reduction of left ventricular hypertrophy improves cardiovascular mortality as previously thought. The development of novel imaging biomarkers that link to cardiovascular outcomes and that are specific to the disease processes in ESRD is therefore required. Postmortem studies of patients with ESRD on hemodialysis have shown that the extent of myocardial fibrosis is strongly linked to cardiovascular death and accurate imaging of myocardial fibrosis would be an attractive target as an imaging biomarker. In this article we will discuss the current imaging methods available to measure myocardial fibrosis in patients with ESRD, the reliability of the techniques, specific challenges and important limitations in patients with ESRD, and how to further develop the techniques we have so they are sufficiently robust for use in future clinical trials.

Native T1 mapping: inter-study, inter-observer and inter-center reproducibility in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Native T1 mapping is a cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique that associates with markers of fibrosis and strain in hemodialysis patients. The reproducibility of T1 mapping in hemodialysis patients, prone to changes in fluid status, is unknown. Accurate quantification of myocardial fibrosis in this population has prognostic potential.

METHODS

Using 3 Tesla CMR, we report the results of 1) the inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility of native T1 mapping in 10 hemodialysis patients; 2) inter-study reproducibility of left ventricular (LV) structure and function in 10 hemodialysis patients; 3) the agreement of native T1 map and native T1 phantom analyses between two centres in 20 hemodialysis patients; 4) the effect of changes in markers of fluid status on native T1 values in 10 hemodialysis patients.

RESULTS

Inter-study, inter-observer and intra-observer variability of native T1 mapping were excellent with co-efficients of variation (CoV) of 0.7, 0.3 and 0.4% respectively. Inter-study CoV for LV structure and function were: LV mass = 1%; ejection fraction = 1.1%; LV end-diastolic volume = 5.2%; LV end-systolic volume = 5.6%. Inter-centre variability of analysis techniques were excellent with CoV for basal and mid-native T1 slices between 0.8-1.2%. Phantom analyses showed comparable native T1 times between centres, despite different scanners and acquisition sequences (centre 1: 1192.7 ± 7.5 ms, centre 2: 1205.5 ± 5 ms). For the 10 patients who underwent inter-study testing, change in body weight (Δweight) between scans correlated with change in LV end-diastolic volume (ΔLVEDV) (r = 0.682;P = 0.03) representing altered fluid status between scans. There were no correlations between change in native T1 between scans (ΔT1) and ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.6). Linear regression confirmed ΔT1 was unaffected by ΔLVEDV or Δweight (P > 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Myocardial native T1 is reproducible in HD patients and unaffected by changes in fluid status at the levels we observed. Native T1 mapping is a potential imaging biomarker for myocardial fibrosis in patients with end-stage renal disease.