What are the Consequences of Volume Expansion in Chronic Dialysis Patients?

Systematic Fluid Assessment in Haemodialysis: Development and Validation of A Decision Aid

BACKGROUND

About a third of patients undergoing haemodialysis have poorly controlled fluid status, which may affect survival. Clinical assessment is subjective and imprecise, which has led to the increasing use of devices based on bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). However, BIS cannot provide a simple target applicable to all patients. Our aim was to develop and validate a decision aid combining clinical assessment of fluid status with information from BIS in target weight determination.

METHODS

The decision aid was based on empirical experience and a literature review identifying physiological parameters already used in the clinical assessment of fluid status. Content validity was established by patient representatives, interdisciplinary stakeholders and external experts, who assessed item relevance and comprehensiveness. Reliability was assessed by inter-rater agreement analysis between nurses assessing typical patient cases.

RESULTS

The decision aid for Recognition and Correction of Volume Alterations (RECOVA) consists of three parts (1) a scoring system; (2) thresholds and triggers; (3) a decision aid algorithm. Agreement between raters in the assessment of symptoms was almost perfect, with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient > 0.90. Agreement in clinical response was only fair, but increased to moderate, with training and self-reported confidence.

CONCLUSION

RECOVA may enable systematic clinical assessment of fluid status, facilitating early recognition of fluid alterations, and incorporation of bioimpedance into target weight management. However, implementation into clinical practice will require training of staff. Clinical intervention studies are required to evaluate if RECOVA facilitates response to and correction of recognised fluid alterations.

Volume Balance and Intradialytic Ultrafiltration Rate in the Hemodialysis Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Volume management in hemodialysis patients is often challenging. Assessing volume status and deciding how much fluid to remove during hemodialysis, the so-called ultrafiltration rate (UFR), has remained a conundrum.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date there is no objective assessment tool to determine the needed UFR during each hemodialysis session. Higher volume overload or higher UFR is associated with poor outcomes including worse mortality and unfavorable clinical outcomes. We suggest combined use of the following criteria to determine UFR or post-dialysis target dry weight: pre-hemodialysis blood pressure and its intradialytic changes, muscle cramps, dyspnea from pulmonary vascular congestion, peripheral edema, tachycardia or palpitation, headache or lightheadedness, perspiration, and post-dialysis fatigue. Restricting fluid and salt intake-and high-dose loop diuretic use in cases of residual kidney function-can be helpful in controlling fluid gains. More frequent and more severe hypotensive episodes are associated with poor outcomes including higher death risk.

Ultrafiltration Rate Thresholds in Maintenance Hemodialysis: An NKF-KDOQI Controversies Report

High hemodialysis ultrafiltration rate (UFR) is increasingly recognized as an important and modifiable risk factor for mortality among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Recently, the Kidney Care Quality Alliance (KCQA) developed a UFR measure to assess dialysis unit care quality. The UFR measure was defined as UFR≥13mL/kg/h for patients with dialysis session length less than 240 minutes and was endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a quality measure in December 2015. Despite this, implementation of a UFR threshold remains controversial. In this NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) Controversies Report, we discuss the concept of the UFR, which is governed by patients' interdialytic weight gain, body weight, and dialysis treatment time. We also examine the potential benefits and pitfalls of adopting a UFR threshold as a clinical performance measure and outline several aspects of UFR thresholds that require further research.