Combined therapy with glycerol and 10% NaCl for preventing dialysis-induced hypotension

Randomized trial of frequent low-efficiency and short hemodialysis/hemofiltration in hemodialysis patients with acute brain injury

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare effects of frequent low-efficiency and short hemodialysis (FLESHD) and frequent low-efficiency and short hemofiltration (FLESHF) in hemodialysis (HD) patients with acute brain injury (ABI).


METHODS

We randomly divided 13 HD patients with ABI into FLESHD (n = 6) or FLESHF (n = 7) groups. Conditions for the first to third sessions were as follows.

FLESHD

intravenous administration of glycerol 400 ml/session, blood flow rate (QB) 100 ml/min, dialysate flow rate 300 ml/min, and treatment duration 2 h (HD-1).

FLESHF

intravenous administration of glycerol 400 ml/session, QB 150 ml/min, substitution flow rate 10 l/session, and treatment duration 4 h (HF-1). After the fourth session, we gradually changed the conditions and stopped glycerol administration (HD-2 and HF-2).


RESULTS

There were no significant differences in survival rate, consciousness level, or adverse effects during hospitalization in either group. In mixed model analysis, the level of HCO3- post FLESHF was significantly (p<0.0001) increased compared with the level post FLESHD. However, no significant differences were seen in the levels of osmolality, in blood pressure before and after either dialysis method, or in the level of HCO3- pre dialysis. The variation in the relative ratio of BUN before FLESHF was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the relative ratio before FLESHD in the sixth session. In the FLESHD groups, serum sodium was higher and serum potassium was lower than in the FLESHF groups.


CONCLUSIONS

FLESHD with glycerol under these conditions may be a better therapeutic option for managing patients with ABI, although the short-term survival rate is similar.

Prolonged protective effect of short daily hemodialysis against dialysis-induced hypotension

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Short daily hemodialysis (HD) has a protective effect against dialysis-induced hypotension (DIH). We examined whether this effect extends beyond the treatment period.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical variables in 6 patients (5 with diabetes mellitus) who underwent conventional hemodialysis (CHD) for 4 h three times weekly for 12 weeks; then short daily HD for 2 h six times weekly for 12 weeks, and then 12 more weeks of CHD. All patients had been given vasopressors for severe DIH.

RESULTS

The severe DIH disappeared during the short daily HD. There were significant decreases in body weight (BW), cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), blood pressure (BP), normal saline solution (NSS) amount (62.8 +/- 26.4 vs. 9.8 +/- 7.4 ml/session, p < 0.05), frequency (0.60 +/- 0.26 vs. 0.10 +/- 0.07 infusions/session, p < 0.05) and postdialysis atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) (176.8 +/- 56.4 vs. 104.8 +/- 42.3 pg/ml, p < 0.05). Weekly ultrafiltration volume (6.3 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.9 +/- 0.7 l, p < 0.05) was significantly higher during the short daily HD period than during the first CHD period. The vasopressor treatment was therefore stopped or reduced in all patients during the short daily HD period. Because DIH recurred in the second CHD period despite a significant increase in BP, the vasopressor treatment was resumed in 5 patients. BW, CTR, NSS infusion amount and frequency, or postdialysis ANP did not differ significantly between the short daily HD and second CHD periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The protective effect of short daily HD against DIH lasted more than 12 weeks after the treatment ended. We therefore conclude that temporary short daily HD is useful for preventing DIH.

Sodium ramping in hemodialysis: a study of beneficial and adverse effects

Sodium ramping has been introduced as a technique to decrease side effects occurring during hemodialysis. We studied sodium ramping in 414 dialysis sessions in 23 patients by randomizing 2-week blocks of dialysis to either steady dialysate sodium of 140 mEq/L, linear sodium ramping during dialysis from 155 mEq/L to 140 mEq/ L, or stepwise ramping (sodium of 155 mEq/L for 3 hours and 140 mEq/L for 1 hour). We studied the number and severity of hypotensive and hypertensive episodes. A hypotensive episode was defined as an abrupt decline of systolic blood pressure of more than 50 mm Hg, a decrease in blood pressure accompanied by symptoms requiring intervention, or systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg even without symptoms. A hypertensive episode was defined as a sudden increase in systolic blood pressure of over 30 mm Hg. We also recorded other side effects (headache, cramps, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, thirst, fatigue, weight gain, and blood pressure) during, immediately after, and between dialysis sessions. There was no major difference between the two ramping protocols, but compared with standard dialysis, both decreased total number of side effects from 4.0 to 3.0 (P = 0.057); the number of hypotensive episodes decreased from 1.3 to 0.7 (P = 0.036). The lowest blood pressure was 114/66 mm Hg during control and 123/69 mm Hg during ramping (P < 0.0001). The frequency of cramps during dialysis decreased from 0.9 to 0.5 (P = 0.006). There was no difference in headache, nausea, or vomiting. The number of hypertensive episodes increased from 0.045 to 0.086 during ramping (P = 0.125). Of 23 patients, only five (22%) had a marked decrease in symptoms; two of the three most symptomatic patients showed no significant improvement. Between dialysis sessions, patients complained of more fatigue and thirst (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0028, respectively), and interdialytic weight gain following ramping was 5.1% of body weight compared with 4.4% without ramping (P < 0.0001). Blood pressure also increased following ramping, from 143/79 mm Hg to 152/81 mm Hg (P = 0.001). Ramping can decrease the overall number of side effects, but increases interdialytic symptoms, weight gain, and hypertension. In most instances, it simply changes the time the side effects occur. Only 22% of patients have significant benefit. These patients can be identified only through trial and error, as no model of these patients can be created.