Association of Different Definitions of Intradialytic Hypertension With Long-Term Mortality in Hemodialysis

The prevalence and risk of mortality associated with intradialytic hypertension among patients with end-stage kidney disease on haemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Intradialytic hypertension (IDHTN) is a common but less frequently recognised complication of haemodialysis. However, it is associated with increased overall mortality in patients on haemodialysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of IDHTN and associated mortality risk in the global haemodialysis population.

METHOD

A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE was undertaken to identify articles with relevant data published between 1990 and 2023. The pooled prevalence of IDHTN in the global haemodialysis population was determined using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. The pooled hazards ratio for mortality in patients with IDHTN was also computed from the studies that reported mortality among haemodialysis patients with IDHTN. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023388278).

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles from 17 countries were included, with a pooled population of 127,080 hemodialysis patients (median age 55.1 years, 38.2% females). Most studies had medium methodological quality (53.1%, n = 17). The overall pooled prevalence of IDHTN was 26.6% [(95% CI 20.2-33.4%), n = 27 studies, I2 = 99.3%, p<0.001 for heterogeneity], with significant differences depending on the definition used. The pooled proportion of haemodialysis sessions with IDHTN was 19.9% [(95% 12.5-28.6%, n = 8 studies, I2 = 99.3%, p<0.001 for heterogeneity)] with significant differences across the different definition criteria. The p-value for the Begg test was 0.85. The median pre-dialysis blood pressure was not significantly associated with IDHTN. The pooled hazard ratio for mortality was 1.37 (95% CI 1.09-1.65), n = 5 studies, I2 = 13.7%, and p-value for heterogeneity = 0.33.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of IDHTN is high and varies widely according to the definition used. A consensus definition of IDHTN is needed to promote uniformity in research and management. The increased mortality risk forecasted by IDHTN highlights the need for optimal blood pressure control in patients on hemodialysis.

Hypertensive Emergency During Dialysis: A Paradoxical Physiologic Response

Most end-stage renal disease patients experience a reduction in blood pressure during their hemodialysis session compared to predialysis. Surprisingly, a small subset of patients will experience an unusual physiological response to dialysis that results in a paradoxical increase in blood pressure. We discuss a case that involved an exaggerated elevation in blood pressure, ultimately requiring immediate cessation of dialysis and admission to the intensive care unit for intravenous treatment of a hypertensive emergency. This case serves as a framework to introduce the infrequently discussed concept of intradialytic hypertension. The underlying pathogenesis is poorly understood with multiple theoretical etiologies including activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, imbalances in circulating levels of endothelium-derived mediators, clearance of antihypertensive medications, increased cardiac output, and changes in arterial thickness. It is important to be cognizant of this phenomenon as emerging evidence suggests that patients with any elevation in blood pressure during hemodialysis have increased rates of both short-term and long-term mortality.

Association of Bioimpedance Parameters with Increases in Blood Pressure during Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypertension, defined as an increase in BP from pre- to post-hemodialysis (HD), affects 5%-15% of patients receiving maintenance HD and is associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Hypervolemia is believed to be a major etiological factor, yet the association of more objective biomarkers of volume status with intradialytic hypertension is not well described.

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis of the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial ( n =234), using data from baseline, 1-, 4-, and 12-month visits ( n =800), we used random-effects regression to assess the association of bioimpedance estimates of volume (vector length) with post-HD systolic BP (continuous) and any increase in systolic BP (categorical) from pre- to post-HD. We adjusted models for randomized group; age; sex; self-reported race; Quételet (body mass) index; vascular access; HD vintage; hypertension; history of heart failure; diabetes; residual kidney function (urea clearance); pre-HD systolic BP; ultrafiltration rate; serum-dialysate sodium gradient; and baseline values of hemoglobin, phosphate, and equilibrated Kt/V urea.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 50±14 years, 39% were female, and 43% were Black. In adjusted models, shorter vector length (per 50 Ω/m) was associated with higher post-HD systolic BP (2.9 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6 to 4.3) and higher odds of intradialytic hypertension (odds ratio 1.66; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.55). Similar patterns of association were noted with a more stringent definition of intradialytic hypertension (>10 mm Hg increase from pre- to post-HD systolic BP), where shorter vector length (per 50 Ω/m) was associated with a higher odds of intradialytic hypertension (odds ratio 2.17; 95% CI, 0.88 to 5.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter vector length, a bioimpedance-derived proxy of hypervolemia, was independently associated with higher post-HD systolic BP and risk of intradialytic hypertension.

Real-time dual prediction of intradialytic hypotension and hypertension using an explainable deep learning model

Both intradialytic hypotension (IDH) and hypertension (IDHTN) are associated with poor outcomes in hemodialysis patients, but a model predicting dual outcomes in real-time has never been developed. Herein, we developed an explainable deep learning model with a sequence-to-sequence-based attention network to predict both of these events simultaneously. We retrieved 302,774 hemodialysis sessions from the electronic health records of 11,110 patients, and these sessions were split into training (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) datasets through patient randomization. The outcomes were defined when nadir systolic blood pressure (BP) < 90 mmHg (termed IDH-1), a decrease in systolic BP ≥ 20 mmHg and/or a decrease in mean arterial pressure ≥ 10 mmHg (termed IDH-2), or an increase in systolic BP ≥ 10 mmHg (i.e., IDHTN) occurred within 1 h. We developed a temporal fusion transformer (TFT)-based model and compared its performance in the test dataset, including receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curves (AUPRC), with those of other machine learning models, such as recurrent neural network, light gradient boosting machine, random forest, and logistic regression. Among all models, the TFT-based model achieved the highest AUROCs of 0.953 (0.952-0.954), 0.892 (0.891-0.893), and 0.889 (0.888-0.890) in predicting IDH-1, IDH-2, and IDHTN, respectively. The AUPRCs in the TFT-based model for these outcomes were higher than the other models. The factors that contributed the most to the prediction were age and previous session, which were time-invariant variables, as well as systolic BP and elapsed time, which were time-varying variables. The present TFT-based model predicts both IDH and IDHTN in real time and offers explainable variable importance.

Time of hemodialysis and risk of intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension in maintenance hemodialysis

Intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are complications of hemodialysis (HD) associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and death. Blood pressure (BP) normally fluctuates in a circadian pattern, but whether the risk of intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension varies according to the time of the HD session is unknown. We analyzed two cohorts of thrice-weekly maintenance HD (N = 1838 patients/n = 64,503 sessions from the Hemodialysis [HEMO] Study, and N = 3302 patients/n = 33,590 sessions from Satellite Healthcare). Random effects logistic regression models examined the association of HD start time (at or before 9:00 a.m. [early AM], between 9:01 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. [late AM], and at or after 12:01 p.m. [PM]) with intradialytic hypotension (defined as nadir intra-HD systolic BP (SBP) < 90 mmHg if pre-HD SBP < 160 mmHg, or <100 mmHg if pre-HD SBP ≥ 160 mmHg) and intradialytic hypertension (SBP increase ≥ 10 mmHg from pre-HD to post-HD). Compared to early AM, late AM and PM were associated with an 8% (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.02) and a 16% (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.95) lower risk of intradialytic hypotension in HEMO, respectively. Conversely, compared to early AM, a monotonic higher risk of intradialytic hypertension was observed for late AM (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35) and PM (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.27-1.56) in HEMO. These findings were consistent in Satellite. In two large cohorts of maintenance HD, we observed a monotonic lower risk of intradialytic hypotension and a monotonic higher risk of intradialytic hypertension with later dialysis start times. Whether HD treatment allocation to certain times of the day in hypotensive-prone or hypertensive-prone patients improves outcomes deserves further investigation.

Associations of Iron Sucrose and Intradialytic Blood Pressure

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are associated with morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis (HD). Many factors can contribute to intra-HD blood pressure (BP) changes, such as drugs with vasoactive properties that can destabilize an already tenuous BP. Intravenous iron sucrose is commonly administered to correct iron deficiency; however, its reported associations with altered hemodynamics have not been consistent.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

950 outpatients receiving maintenance HD.

EXPOSURE

Iron sucrose administered during HD.

OUTCOME

Intradialytic hypotension, intradialytic hypertension, systolic blood pressure parameters.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Unadjusted and adjusted Poisson and linear repeated measures regression models.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients included in the study was 53±22 years, 43% were female, and 38% were Black. Mean pre-HD SBP was 152±26 (SD) mm Hg. At baseline, the patients who received higher doses of iron sucrose tended to have diabetes, have longer HD sessions, and have a higher frequency of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use, compared with those who did not receive iron sucrose. In adjusted models, higher doses of iron sucrose were associated with an 11% lower rate of intradialytic hypotension (incidence rate ratio [IRR] for iron sucrose≥100mg vs 0 mg, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.94]). In adjusted analyses, the administration of higher doses of iron sucrose during HD was associated with intradialytic hypertension (IRR for iron sucrose≥100mg vs 0 mg, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]).

LIMITATIONS

Nonavailability of the precise iron sucrose formulation (volume), laboratory data for each HD session, and outpatient medications. Objective measures of volume status, home medications, and symptom data were not recorded in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an independent association of intravenous iron sucrose administration during HD with a lower risk of intradialytic hypotension and higher risk of intradialytic hypertension. Future studies to better understand the mechanisms underlying these associations are warranted.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are common among patients on hemodialysis, and they are associated with morbidity and mortality. Although many factors may contribute to these risks, medications administered during hemodialysis play an important role. We studied the significance of the intravenous iron sucrose used to treat iron deficiency and the impact it may have on blood pressure during dialysis. In our study of 950 outpatient hemodialysis patients, we observed that administration of iron sucrose was associated with higher systolic blood pressure (during and after hemodialysis sessions) as well as a lower risk of intradialytic hypotension. We also observed that higher doses of iron sucrose are associated with the development of intradialytic hypertension.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Perspectives of Intradialytic Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Individuals with end-stage renal disease on chronic hemodialysis (HD) may encounter numerous HD-associated complications, including intradialytic hypertension (IDHYPER). Although blood pressure (BP) follows a predictable course in the post-HD period, BP levels during the session may vary across the individuals. Typically, a decline in BP is noted during HD, but a significant proportion of patients exhibit a paradoxical elevation.

SUMMARY

Several studies have been conducted to understand the complexity of IDHYPER, but much remains to be elucidated in the future. This review article aimed to present the current evidence regarding the proposed definitions, the pathophysiologic background, the extent and clinical implications of IDHYPER, as well as the possible therapeutic options that have emerged from clinical studies.

KEY MESSAGES

IDHYPER is noted in approximately 15% of individuals undergoing HD. Several definitions have been proposed, with a systolic BP rise >10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis in the hypertensive range in at least four out of six consecutive HD treatments being suggested by the latest Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. Concerning its pathophysiology, extracellular fluid overload is a crucial determinant, with endothelial dysfunction, sympathetic nervous system overdrive, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation, and electrolyte alterations being important contributors. Although its association with ambulatory BP in the interdialytic period is controversial, IDHYPER is associated with adverse cardiovascular events and mortality. Moving to its management, the antihypertensive drugs of choice should ideally be nondialyzable with proven cardiovascular and mortality benefits. Finally, rigorous clinical and objective assessment of extracellular fluid volume is essential. Volume-overloaded patients should be instructed about the importance of sodium restriction, while physicians ought to alter HD settings toward a greater dry weight reduction. The use of a low-sodium dialysate and isothermic HD could also be considered on a case-by-case basis since no randomized evidence is currently available.

Frequency of Intradialytic Hypertension Using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Suggested Definition in a Single Hemodialysis Centre in Pakistan

OBJECTIVES

 To estimate the frequency of intradialytic hypertension (IDH) in our centre as per the definition suggested by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).

METHODS

 A cross-sectional study was conducted at the dialysis department of The Kidney Centre Post Graduate Training Institute (PGTI) Karachi, Pakistan from August 2021 to October 2021 among 263 end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) aged ≥ 18 years of both genders. The study outcome was the frequency of IDH as per the latest KDIGO suggested definition i.e., systolic blood pressure (SBP) rise of > 10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis within the hypertensive range in at least four out of six consecutive dialysis treatments. Frequencies (%) and mean (±SD) were calculated for categorical and continuous variables respectively, using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

 Among 263 patients, the mean age was 51.02 (±14.1) years and 56.3% were males. Around 30.8% of patients were dialysis-dependent for 1.1 to three years. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (88.6%). Standard dialysate calcium of 3mEq/l was received by 91.6% of study participants. About 78.7% of patients were using antihypertensive(s), out of which 85.5% were compliant and 37.6% were using a single antihypertensive. The most common antihypertensive in use was beta-blockers (78.3%). Around 16% of patients were found to have IDH. Age of the patients was significantly associated with IDH (p=0.038). The majority of the patients with IDH were those who were taking anti-hypertension medications as compared to the patients who were not taking them (p <0.004). Interdialytic weight gain was not a significant predictor for IDH.

CONCLUSION

 The frequency of IDH was 16% according to the latest suggested KDIGO definition. This is much lower than regional and global estimates according to earlier definitions. There is a dire need to establish a standardized definition of IDH in guidelines to diagnose, manage and compare data. Also, the association of IDH with fluid overload is not found in our study which emphasizes the need to evaluate other causative factors.