β-Blockers in dialysis patients: a nephrocardiology perspective

Sodium First Approach, to Reset Our Mind for Improving Management of Sodium, Water, Volume and Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients, and to Reduce Cardiovascular Burden and Improve Outcomes

New physiologic findings related to sodium homeostasis and pathophysiologic associations require a new vision for sodium, fluid and blood pressure management in dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients. The traditional dry weight probing approach that has prevailed for many years must be reviewed in light of these findings and enriched by availability of new tools for monitoring and handling sodium and water imbalances. A comprehensive and integrated approach is needed to improve further cardiac health in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Adequate management of sodium, water, volume and hemodynamic control of HD patients relies on a stepwise approach: the first entails assessment and monitoring of fluid status and relies on clinical judgement supported by specific tools that are online embedded in the HD machine or devices used offline; the second consists of acting on correcting fluid imbalance mainly through dialysis prescription (treatment time, active tools embedded on HD machine) but also on guidance related to diet and thirst management; the third consist of fine tuning treatment prescription to patient responses and tolerance with the support of innovative tools such as artificial intelligence and remote pervasive health trackers. It is time to come back to sodium and water imbalance as the root cause of the problem and not to act primarily on their consequences (fluid overload, hypertension) or organ damage (heart; atherosclerosis, brain). We know the problem and have the tools to assess and manage in a more precise way sodium and fluid in HD patients. We strongly call for a sodium first approach to reduce disease burden and improve cardiac health in dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients.

Association Between Lipophilic Beta-Blockers and Depression in Diabetic Patients on Chronic Dialysis

Background:

Depression is associated with lower quality of life and increased risk of mortality. The prevalence of depression in chronic dialysis patients, as well as in patients with diabetes, is more than 20%. It is debated whether use of beta-blockers increases the risk of depression. Therefore, we examined in chronic dialysis patients with and without diabetes, the association between beta-blockers and depressive symptoms.

Methods:

Data were collected from the DIVERS-I study, a multicentre prospective cohort among chronic dialysis patients in the Netherlands. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). We defined depressive symptoms as a BDI-II score ⩾16. The cross-sectional association at baseline between depressive symptoms and beta-blocker use in chronic dialysis patients, was studied by multivariable logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.

Results:

We included 684 chronic dialysis patients, of whom 43% had diabetes mellitus, and 57% used a beta-blocker of which 97% were lipophilic. After multivariable adjustment, the OR (95% CI) for depressive symptoms in patients with compared to without diabetes was 1.41 (1.00-1.98), and in beta-blocker users compared to non-users 1.12 (0.80-1.56), respectively. Dialysis patients with diabetes and beta-blocker use compared to those without diabetes and not using beta-blockers had an OR of 1.73 (1.12-2.69) for depressive symptoms. The association was stronger in dialysis patients with diabetes and lipophilic beta-blocker use with an OR of 1.77 (1.14-2.74).

Conclusions:

We found a possible association between lipophilic beta-blocker use and depressive symptoms in chronic dialysis patients with diabetes.

Comparative effectiveness of bisoprolol and carvedilol among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis

Background

Despite widespread use, there is no trial evidence to inform β-blocker's (BB) relative safety and efficacy among patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). We herein compare health outcomes associated with carvedilol or bisoprolol use, the most commonly prescribed BBs in these patients.

Methods

We created a cohort study of 9305 HD patients who initiated bisoprolol and 11 171 HD patients who initiated carvedilol treatment between 2004 and 2011. We compared the risk of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between carvedilol and bisoprolol users during a 2-year follow-up.

Results

Bisoprolol initiators were younger, had shorter dialysis vintage, were women, had common comorbidities of hypertension and hyperlipidemia and were receiving statins and antiplatelets, but they had less heart failure and digoxin prescriptions than carvedilol initiators. During our observations, 1555 deaths and 5167 MACEs were recorded. In the multivariable-adjusted Cox model, bisoprolol initiation was associated with a lower all-cause mortality {hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.73]} compared with carvedilol initiation. After accounting for the competing risk of death, bisoprolol use (versus carvedilol) was associated with a lower risk of MACEs [HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.91)] and attributed to a lower risk of heart failure [HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.91)] and ischemic stroke [HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72-0.97)], but not to differences in the risk of acute myocardial infarction [HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.93-1.15)]. Results were confirmed in propensity score matching analyses, stratified analyses and analyses that considered prescribed dosages or censored patients discontinuing or switching BBs.

Conclusions

Relative to carvedilol, bisoprolol initiation by HD patients was associated with a lower 2-year risk of death and MACEs, mainly attributed to lower heart failure and ischemic stroke risk.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of BP-Lowering Pharmacotherapy in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Dialysis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Elevated BP is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with a prevalence of over 80% in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. We assessed the comparative BP-lowering efficacy and the safety of BP-lowering drugs in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials evaluating BP-lowering agents in adult patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) were systematically searched (up to August 2018) for relevant trials. The main outcome was systolic BP reduction.

RESULTS

Forty trials (4283 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and aldosterone antagonists lowered systolic BP to a greater extent than placebo, with effect sizes ranging from -10.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -6.7 mm Hg) for the aldosterone antagonists to -4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -7.2 to -1.5 mm Hg) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Aldosterone antagonists and β-blockers were superior to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin inhibitors at lowering systolic BP. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists and β-blockers lowered systolic BP by 6.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -11.4 to -1.4 mm Hg) and 4.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -7.4 to -1.3 mm Hg), respectively. Systolic BP reduction was not different with angiotensin receptor blockers, α-blockers, and calcium-channel blockers compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Renin inhibitors were less effective. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists incurred risks of drug discontinuation due to adverse events and hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

BP-lowering agents significantly reduced systolic BP in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. β-Blockers and aldosterone antagonists may confer larger reductions, although treatment with aldosterone antagonists may be limited by adverse events.

Timing of blood pressure medications and intradialytic hypotension

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a prevalent yet serious complication of hemodialysis, associated with decreased quality of life, inadequate dialysis, vascular access thrombosis, global hypoperfusion, and increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Current guidelines recommend antihypertensive medications be given at night and held the morning of dialysis for affected patients. Despite little evidence to support this recommendation, more than half of patients on dialysis may employ some form of this method. In this article, we will review the available evidence and clinical considerations regarding timing of blood pressure medications and occurrence of IDH, and conclude that witholding BP medications before hemodialysis should not be a routine practice.

Insights From the 2016 Peer Kidney Care Initiative Report: Still a Ways to Go to Improve Care for Dialysis Patients

Although outcomes improved during the past decade for patients receiving maintenance dialysis, gains were few in certain key areas, as highlighted in the 2016 Peer Kidney Care Initiative Report. Overall incidence rates of dialysis therapy initiation in adults remained relatively stable (∼42 per 100,000 US population, 2009-2013), but rates varied more than 2-fold, from 26 to 54, across US geographic regions. Hospitalization rates in incident patients decreased from 261 hospitalizations per 100 patient-years in 2003 to 207 in 2012, but observation stay rates increased from 40 to 67, attenuating the decline in hospitalizations by half. Decreases in prevalent patient hospitalizations for heart failure, from 15.6 per 100 patient-years in 2004 to 9.5 in 2013, were partially offset by increases in hospitalizations for volume overload, from 3.0 in 2004 to 6.1 in 2013. Prevalent patient rates of hospitalizations for arrhythmias (∼4.6 per 100 patient-years) did not improve during the past decade, whereas sudden cardiac death as a proportion of total cardiovascular deaths increased from 53% to 73%. Hospitalization rates for pneumonia/influenza, at about 8.3 per 100 patient-years in prevalent patients, did not decrease during this period, while hospitalization rates for bacteremia/sepsis increased from 8.6 to 12.0. If decreases in mortality rates are to be sustained, novel approaches to these challenges will be required.

Treatment tolerance and patient-reported outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration compared to high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly

Large cohort studies suggest that high convective volumes associated with online hemodiafiltration may reduce the risk of mortality/morbidity compared to optimal high-flux hemodialysis. By contrast, intradialytic tolerance is not well studied. The aim of the FRENCHIE (French Convective versus Hemodialysis in Elderly) study was to compare high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration in terms of intradialytic tolerance. In this prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial, 381 elderly chronic hemodialysis patients (over age 65) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to either high-flux hemodialysis or online hemodiafiltration. The primary outcome was intradialytic tolerance (day 30-day 120). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk biomarkers, morbidity, and mortality. During the observational period for intradialytic tolerance, 85% and 84% of patients in high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration arms, respectively, experienced at least one adverse event without significant difference between groups. As exploratory analysis, intradialytic tolerance was also studied, considering the sessions as a statistical unit according to treatment actually received. Over a total of 11,981 sessions, 2,935 were complicated by the occurrence of at least one adverse event, with a significantly lower occurrence in online hemodiafiltration with fewer episodes of intradialytic symptomatic hypotension and muscle cramps. By contrast, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality were not different in both groups. An improvement in the control of metabolic bone disease biomarkers and β2-microglobulin level without change in serum albumin concentration was observed with online hemodiafiltration. Thus, overall outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration over high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly.