Comparison of hemodialysis access flow measurements using flow dilution and in-line dialysance

Online measurement of hemodialysis adequacy using effective ionic dialysance of sodium-a review of its principles, applications, benefits, and risks

Dialysis dose is an important determinant of clinical outcomes in patients with end stage renal disease on maintenance dialysis. In clinical practice dialysis dose is monitored at least monthly by urea clearance based on Urea Kinetic Modeling. Online clearance monitoring using effective ionic dialysance (EID) of sodium (Na⁺ ) is available on some hemodialysis machines. This paper reviews the background, methodology, additional applications, and potential risks associated with EID. Effective ionic dialysance provides a reliable, real-time, noninvasive, and inexpensive measurement of dialysis dose during an ongoing hemodialysis (HD) session to allow interventions and assess the impact of these changes on clearance. Surveillance of vascular access flow rates can be used to screen for access dysfunction and refer for interventions. There is a concern that EID measurements may cause Na⁺ loading because of high dialysate Na⁺ used during these measurements, however, mathematical models, in vitro experiments, and clinical studies in patients on maintenance HD do not show any evidence of Na⁺ loading during EID measurements. We cannot rule out the possibility of nonosmotic Na⁺ accumulation in the skin because no published literature exists on this topic as it pertains to clearance measurements based on EID of Na⁺ .

Pre-emptive correction for haemodialysis arteriovenous access stenosis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend routine arteriovenous (AV) graft and fistula surveillance (technology-based screening) in addition to clinical monitoring (physical examination) for early identification and pre-emptive correction of a stenosis before the access becomes dysfunctional. However, consequences on patient-relevant outcomes of pre-emptive correction of a stenosis in a functioning access as opposed to deferred correction, i.e. correction postponed to when the access becomes dysfunctional, are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate 1) whether pre-emptive correction of an AV access stenosis improves clinically relevant outcomes; 2) whether the effects of pre-emptive correction of an AV access stenosis differ by access type (fistula versus graft), aim (primary and secondary prophylaxis), and surveillance method for primary prophylaxis (Doppler ultrasound for the screening of functional and anatomical changes versus measurement of the flow in the access); and 3) whether other factors (dialysis duration, access location, configuration or materials, algorithm for referral for intervention, intervention strategies (surgical versus radiological or other), or study design) explain the heterogeneity that might exist in the effect estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 30 November 2015 using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies of any access surveillance method for early identification and pre-emptive treatment of an AV access stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on potentially remediable and irremediable failure of the access (i.e. thrombosis and access loss respectively); infection and mortality; and resource use (hospitalisation, diagnostic and intervention procedures). Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1390 participants), nine enrolled adults without a known access stenosis (primary prophylaxis; three studies including people using fistulas) and five enrolled adults with a documented stenosis in a non-dysfunctional access (secondary prophylaxis; three studies in people using fistulas). Study follow-up ranged from 6 to 38 months, and study size ranged from 58 to 189 participants. In low- to moderate-quality evidence (based on GRADE criteria) in adults treated with haemodialysis, relative to no surveillance and deferred correction, surveillance with pre-emptive correction of an AV stenosis reduced the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; I² = 30%; 18 study comparisons, 1212 participants), but had imprecise effect on the risk of access loss (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02; I² = 0%; 11 study comparisons, 972 participants). In analyses subgrouped by access type, pre-emptive stenosis correction did not reduce the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 11 study comparisons, 697 participants) or access loss in grafts (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15; I² = 0%; 7 study comparisons; 662 participants), but did reduce the risk of thrombosis (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; I² = 0%; 7 study comparisons, 515 participants) and the risk of access loss in fistulas (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 310 participants). Three of the four studies reporting access loss data in fistulas (199 participants) were conducted in the same centre. Insufficient data were available to assess whether benefits vary by prophylaxis aim in fistulas (i.e. primary and secondary prophylaxis). Although the magnitude of the effects of pre-emptive stenosis correction was considerable for patient-centred outcomes, results were either heterogeneous or imprecise. While pre-emptive stenosis correction may reduce the rates of hospitalisation (IRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; I² = 67%; 4 study comparisons, 219 participants) and use of catheters (IRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; I² = 53%; 6 study comparisons, 394 participants), it may also increase the rates of diagnostic procedures (IRR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.67; I² = 62%; 7 study comparisons, 539 participants), infection (IRR 1.74, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.91; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 248 participants) and mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.11; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 386 participants).In general, risk of bias was high or unclear in most studies for many domains we assessed. Four studies were published after 2005 and only one had evidence of registration within a trial registry. No study reported information on authorship and/or involvement of the study sponsor in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptive correction of a newly identified or known stenosis in a functional AV access does not improve access longevity. Although pre-emptive stenosis correction may be promising in fistulas existing evidence is insufficient to guide clinical practice and health policy. While pre-emptive stenosis correction may reduce the risk of hospitalisation, this benefit is uncertain whereas there may be a substantial increase (i.e. 80%) in the use of access-related procedures and procedure-related adverse events (e.g. infection, mortality). The net effects of pre-emptive correction on harms and resource use are thus unclear.

Does regular surveillance improve the long-term survival of arteriovenous fistulas?

The rate of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) placement continues to rise and AVF failure is a major complication. The main cause of AVF failure is stenosis leading to thrombosis. Although the detection of early stenosis with preemptive correction prior to thrombosis seems to be a plausible option to prevent access failure, there is much debate, on the basis of studies of surveillance with arteriovenous grafts, as to whether early surveillance actually improves the longevity of AVFs. Evaluating the available information for surveillance, specifically the data for AVF stenosis and survival, is necessary to determine if surveillance is warranted. These trials have shown that vascular access flow (Qa) surveillance is beneficial in revealing subclinical stenosis. Preemptive angioplasty and surgical revision have shown to decrease thrombosis rates. However, at the present time, there is only limited data on whether preemptive treatment equates to improved long-term AVF survival.

The measurement of hemodialysis access blood flow by a conductivity step method

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Measurement of blood flow rate (Qa) is used to monitor dialysis access, AV fistulas, and grafts. Indicator dilution measurements of the recirculation (R) induced by reversal of hemodialysis blood lines are commonly used. This plus the dialysis circuit flow (Qb) allows calculation of Qa. R also changes the conductivity, which can be measured by a conductivity cell in the spent dialysate. The change in conductivity caused by line reversal should vary with Qa. A methodology for Qa measurement utilizing this conductivity step is proposed. This study compares conductivity step methodology against the reference method of ultrasound dilution (Qa-Trans).

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This was an open diagnostic test study in a single academic hospital setting involving 15 hemodialysis-dependent patients. Each was studied over four hemodialysis treatments. During each treatment, two pairs of Qa measurements (conductivity step and Trans) were made. Pre- and postdialysis sodium levels were also measured.

RESULTS

Average Qa-conductivity step was 1040 ml/min. Average Qa-Trans was 1030 ml/min. The difference was NS. The data pairs showed mean difference of 1.3 +/- 17% (SD). The SD indicates a relatively large variation between data pairs. There was significant linear correlation between the Qa-conductivity step and Qa-Trans results (r = 0.91, P < 0.001). Serum sodium rose slightly but significantly over dialysis (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Qa measurement by conductivity step may be an acceptable alternative to ultrasound dilution methodology. Care must be taken to prevent salt loading when the conductivity step is used.