Continuous Blood Volume Monitoring and Ultrafiltration Control

Soft Target Weight: Theory and Simulation of a Novel Haemodialysis Protocol Which Reduces Excessive Ultrafiltration

INTRODUCTION

Excessive ultrafiltration is associated with intra-dialytic symptoms, loss of residual function, and mortality in haemodialysis patients. A major contributor to excessive ultrafiltration is within-individual variation in pre-dialysis weight and the concept of achieving a fixed target weight by the end of each dialysis session. Haemodialysis protocols which allow variable post-dialysis weight have not been proposed.

METHODS

Weight variation was observed in haemodialysis patients and healthy controls to estimate the proportion of pre-dialysis weight variation which could be considered natural variation. These estimates were used to derive a novel protocol for setting ultrafiltration, which was evaluated by mathematical modelling.

RESULTS

Amongst 20 haemodialysis patients, mean (SD) pre-dialysis weight was 102.74 (0.94)% of target weight after a 2-day gap and 103.50 (0.94)% after a 3-day gap. Amongst 10 healthy individuals, mean (SD) daily weight was 100.0 (0.71)% of average weight. A 4-component model of pre-dialysis weight was derived using these estimates, in which the best estimate of pre-dialysis excess fluid is the midpoint of excess weight and average fluid gain, and used to propose a novel protocol for ultrafiltration setting. In simulations, the novel protocol reduced ultrafiltration variation by more than half (standard deviation 0.6 vs. 1.3% of target weight, p < 0.001), without increasing the variation in post-dialysis fluid excess. Excessive ultrafiltration rates (over 13 mL/h/kg) were far less frequent using this protocol (2.6% vs. 7.5% of sessions, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Considering natural weight variation allows the development of a novel protocol for ultrafiltration in which target weight does not have to be achieved precisely: it is therefore a soft target. This protocol, which is predicted to substantially reduce excessive ultrafiltration variation, is a zero-cost intervention with the potential to improve symptoms and clinical outcome for haemodialysis patients.

Time to Reconsider the Role of Relative Blood Volume Monitoring for Fluid Management in Hemodialysis

Relative blood volume (RBV) monitoring during hemodialysis has been used to help guide fluid management for decades, although with little supporting evidence. The technique relies on the assumption that variation in RBV during fluid removal reflects the capacity for vascular refilling and that efficient refilling is related to fluid overload. This study investigated the relationship between RBV variation and bioimpedance-based fluid overload in 47 patients on stable hemodialysis. Mean treatment ultrafiltration volume (UFV) was 1.7 L and RBV reduction was 3.2%/hour. Relative blood volume slopes were grouped based on trajectory: flatline (no decrease), linear decrease, or linear decrease followed by flatline. Fluid overload was similar (p > 0.05) across groups pre-dialysis (1.0, 2.2, and 1.6 L, respectively) and post-dialysis (-0.8, -0.1, and -0.1 L), whereas UFV was higher in patients with a linear decrease (1.8, 2.5, and 1.6 L; p = 0.02). Specific ultrafiltration rate, but not fluid overload, was associated with RBV change over dialysis. At least half the patients in each group finished dialysis fluid depleted based on bioimpedance, suggesting that the link between refilling and fluid overload is not as straightforward as previously assumed. These results question the assumptions that the absence of an appreciable decrease in RBV indicates fluid overload, and a rapid fall suggests fluid depletion.

A feedback system that combines monitoring of systolic blood pressure and relative blood volume in order to prevent hypotensive episodes during dialysis

Hypotensive Episodes (HEs) are one of the most common complications during dialysis. Occurrence of HEs can be reduced by applying physiological closed loop systems that monitor physiological parameter(s) and adjust dialysis related parameter(s). We developed a physiological closed loop control system (PCLCS) that monitors systolic blood pressure (sysBP) and relative blood volume (RBV) and calculates the net fluid removal (nfr) rate during dialysis. The performance of PCLCS was compared in the laboratory to a feedback system that monitors only RBV (BVFS). A laboratory test setup was developed to test the feedback systems. The test setup simulates nfr-rate and refilling of a patient's intravascular fluid. We studied the impact of the feedback systems PCLCS and BVFS on the number of HEs (sysBP < 90 mmHg), on the variance of sysBP and RBV, on pre to post sysBP and RBV and on the achievement of the nfr-volume. PCLCS allowed 80% less HEs than BVFS (p < 0.001). Variance of sysBP and RBV were reduced by 41.8% and by 52% (p < 0.001), respectively, when using PCLCS. There were no differences between pre to post sysBP nor between pre to post RBV when comparing PCLCS to BVFS. The nfr-volume was achieved by both feedback systems.

Changes in Total Protein Concentration Due to Fluid Removal During and Shortly after Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Changes in plasma volume during hemodialysis are complex and have been shown to depend on the rate of fluid removal and the degree of fluid overload. We examined changes in total protein concentration during and shortly after a dialysis treatment in archived data from the HEMO study.

METHODS

During follow-up months 4 and 36 of the HEMO study, additional blood samples were obtained during a typical dialysis session at 30 and 60 min after dialysis. In 315 studies from 282 patients where complete data were available, we calculated the concentration change in total protein and compared it to the modeled change in both total body water and extracellular fluid space as derived from 2-pool urea kinetic modeling.

RESULTS

The mean postdialysis modeled urea volume (V) was 31.1 ± 6.18 L. Mean fluid removal was 2.76 ± 1.27 kg, over a session length of 207 ± 28 min. The ratio of predialysis V to postdialysis V averaged 1.090 ± 0.040. The mean TP ratios (post/pre) at 0, 30, and 60 min postdialysis averaged 1.121 ± 0.070 (SD), 1.091 ± 0.090, and 1.091 ± 0.086. The dialysate to serum sodium gradient, studied in a different group of treatments where this information was available, had no impact on these findings, nor did the length of the interdialytic interval.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, after equilibration, the change in plasma volume due to fluid removal is similar to the modeled change in total body water (urea space), irrespective of dialysate to serum sodium gradient. This supports previous observations that during dialysis with ultrafiltration, plasma volume contracts to a lesser degree than the interstitial volume and that some fluid may be removed from spaces other than the extracellular fluid.

Relative blood volume monitoring during hemodialysis in end stage renal disease patients

A crucial point in the haemodialysis (HD) treatment is the reliable assessment of hydration status. An inadequate removed volume may lead to chronic fluid overload which can lead to hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure. Therefore, the estimation of the hydration state and the management of a well-tolerated water removal is an important challenge. This exploratory study aims at identifying new parameters obtained from continuous Blood Volume Monitoring (BVM) allowing a qualitative evaluation of hydration status for verifying the adequacy of HD setting parameters (e.g UFR, target dry weight). The percentage of blood volume reduction (BVR%) during HD was compared against a gold standard method for hydration status assessment. The slope of the first 30 minute of blood volume reduction (BVR) was proposed as a useful parameter to identify overhydrated patients.

Can a decreasing ultrafiltration profile affect the dialytic dose administered?

During hemodialysis, ultrafiltration (UF) seems to affect the dialytic dose because of convective removal of urea and contraction of its distribution volume. We aimed to assess whether the adoption of a decreasing UF profile could yield a different dialytic dose from that obtained with a constant UF mode. Ten patients were randomly assigned to undergo 12 sessions with a constant UF mode (phase A) followed by 12 sessions with a decreasing UF rate (phase B), or the reverse. Kt/V and urea reduction ratio (URR) were 1.77 +/- 0.26 and 70.02 +/- 8.26% in phase A vs. 1.81 +/- 0.36 and 71.02 +/- 6.48% in phase B, respectively, showing no significant difference. Measurement of the differences in volemic variations between the two phases showed a statistically significant difference at the second hour (P < 0.001, the volemic reduction being greater in phase B than A) and at the fourth hour (P < 0.001, being greater in phase A than B). In standard bicarbonate dialysis, the adoption of a decreasing UF profile rather than a constant one does not alter the efficiency of the dialytic treatment.