Do patients dialysing with higher ultrafiltration rates report more intradialytic symptoms and longer postdialysis recovery times?

Delayed post-dialysis recovery times are associated with relative changes in intracellular and extracellular fluid ratios between different body compartments

INTRODUCTION

Hemodialysis patient groups have advocated reducing dialysis fatigue and symptoms. We investigated whether compartmental fluid shifts were associated with peri-dialytic fatigue and symptoms.

METHODS

Sessional dialysis records of patients reporting both a short and delayed recovery (<1 h and ≥1 h) with corresponding bioimpedance measurements were reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four patients reported both short and delayed recovery times, mean age 66.0 ± 14.8 years, 66.1% male. Differences between sessions included higher distress thermometer [4 (1-6) vs. 3 (0-5)], fatigue [4 (0-9) vs. 2 (0-7)], total symptom scores [20.5 (12.3-34.5) vs. 16 (7-28)], change in extracellular water to total body water ratios between body compartments [right leg/left arm 2.36 (1.23-4.19) vs. 1.28 (0.12-2.01), all p < 0.01] with delayed recovery, and more hemodialysis than hemodiafiltration sessions (χ2 4.6, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Sessions with prolonged recovery times were associated with more peri-dialytic symptoms, psychological distress, and hemodialysis mode, and greater changes in compartmental fluid shifts.

Intradialytic Tolerance and Recovery Time in Different High-Efficiency Hemodialysis Modalities

There are several forms of maintenance high-efficiency hemodialysis (HD), including hemodiafiltrations (HDF) in different technical modes and expanded HD, using dialyzers with medium cut-off membranes. The aim of the study was to assess the intradialytic tolerance and length of dialysis recovery time (DRT) in these modalities. This is an exploratory, crossover study in maintenance HD patients with low comorbidity and no clinical indications for the use of high-efficiency HD, who were exposed to five intermittent dialyses in random order: high-flux hemodialysis (S-HD), expanded HD (HDx), pre-dilution HDF (PRE-HDF), mix-dilution HDF (MIX-HDF) and post-dilution HDF (POST-HDF). Twenty-four dialysis sessions of each method were included in the analysis. Dialysis parameters, including blood flow rate, dialysis fluid flow rate and temperature, and pharmacological treatment were constant. Average total convection volume for post-HDF, pre-HDF and mix-HDF were 25.6 (3.8), 61.5 (7.2) and 47.1 (11.4) L, respectively. During all therapies, patients were monitored for the similarity of their hydration statuses using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and for similar variability over time in systemic blood pressure and cardiac output, while peripheral resistance was monitored using impedance cardiography. The lowest frequency of all intradialytic adverse events were observed during HDx. Delayed DRT was the shortest during PRE-HDF. Patients were also more likely to report immediate recovery while receiving PRE-HDF. These differences did not reach statistical significance; however, the study results suggest that intradialytic tolerance and DRT may depend on the dialysis method used. This supports the need of taking into account patient preferences and quality of life while individualizing high-efficiency therapy in HD patients.