Impact of hemocontrol on hypertension, nursing interventions, and quality of life: a randomized, controlled trial

Comparison of blood volume biofeedback hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis on cardiovascular stability and blood pressure control in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the improvements in hemodialysis (HD) technology, 20-30% of sessions are still complicated by hypotension or hypotension-related symptoms. Biofeedback systems have proven to reduce the occurrence of such events, but no conclusive findings can lead to wider adoption of these systems. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to establish whether the use of blood volume tracking systems compared to conventional hemodialysis (C-HD) reduces the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out this systematic review. Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the incidence of intradialytic hypotension during C-HD and blood volume tracking-HD were searched in the current literature. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023426328.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven randomized clinical trials were retrieved. Nine studies, including 347 participants and 13,274 HD treatments were considered eligible for this systematic review. The results showed that the use of biofeedback systems reduces the risk of intradialytic hypotension (log odds ratio = 0.63, p = 0.03) in hypotension-prone patients (log odds ratio = 0.54, p = 0.04). When analysis was limited to fluid overloaded or hypertensive patients, it did not show the same effect (log odds ratio = 0.79, p = 0.38). No correlation was found in systolic blood pressure drop during dialysis and in post-dialysis blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of blood volume tracking systems may be effective in reducing the incidence of intradialytic hypotension and allowing for easier attainment of the patients' ideal dry body weight. New studies to examine the long-term effects of the use of blood volume tracking systems on real hard endpoints are needed.

Proceedings of the 2022 UAB CRRT Academy: Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring to Guide Fluid Removal with CRRT and Proliferation of Extracorporeal Blood Purification Devices

In 2022, we celebrated the 15th anniversary of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) Academy, a 2-day conference attended yearly by an international audience of over 100 nephrology, critical care, and multidisciplinary trainees and practitioners. This year, we introduce the proceedings of the UAB CRRT Academy, a yearly review of select emerging topics in the field of critical care nephrology that feature prominently in the conference. First, we review the rapidly evolving field of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring and its potential to guide fluid removal by renal replacement therapy (RRT). We begin by summarizing the accumulating data associating fluid overload with harm in critical illness and the potential for harm from end-organ hypoperfusion caused by excessive fluid removal with RRT, underscoring the importance of accurate, dynamic assessment of volume status. We describe four applications of point-of-care ultrasound used to identify patients in need of urgent fluid removal or likely to tolerate fluid removal: lung ultrasound, inferior vena cava ultrasound, venous excess ultrasonography, and Doppler of the left ventricular outflow track to estimate stroke volume. We briefly introduce other minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies before concluding that additional prospective data are urgently needed to adapt these technologies to the specific task of fluid removal by RRT and to learn how best to integrate them into practical fluid-management strategies. Second, we focus on the growth of novel extracorporeal blood purification devices, starting with brief reviews of the inflammatory underpinnings of multiorgan dysfunction and the specific applications of pathogen, endotoxin, and/or cytokine removal and immunomodulation. Finally, we review a series of specific adsorptive technologies, several of which have seen substantial clinical use during the COVID-19 pandemic, describing their mechanisms of target removal, the limited existing data supporting their efficacy, ongoing and future studies, and the need for additional prospective trials.

Trend and determinants of mortality in incident hemodialysis patients of the Lazio region

BACKGROUND

. In the last decades some studies observed a moderate progressive decrease in short-term mortality in incident hemodialysis patients. The aim of the study is to analyse the mortality trends in patients starting hemodialysis using the Lazio Regional Dialysis and Transplant Registry.

METHODS

. Patients who started chronic hemodialysis between 2008 and 2016 were included. Annual 1-year and 3-year Crude Mortality Rate*100 Person Years (CMR*100PY) overall, by gender and age classes were calculated. Cumulative survival estimates at 1 year and 3 years since the date of starting hemodialysis were presented as Kaplan-Meier curves for the three periods and compared using the log-rank test. The association between periods of incidence in hemodialysis and 1-year and 3-year mortality were investigated by means of unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression models. Potential determinants of both mortality outcomes were also investigated.

RESULTS

. Among 6,997 hemodialysis patients (64.5% males, 66.1% over 65 years old) 923 died within 1 year and 2,253 within 3 years form incidence; CMR*100PY were 14.1 (95%CI: 13.2-15.0) and 13.7 (95%CI: 13.2-14.3), respectively; both remained unchanged over the years. Even after stratification by gender and age classes no significant changes emerged. Kaplan-Meier mortality curves did not show any statistically significant differences in survival at 1 year and 3 years from hemodialysis incidence across periods. No statistically significant associations were found between periods and 1-year and 3-year mortality. Factors associated with a greater increase in mortality are: being over 65 years, born in Italy, not being self-sufficient, having systemic versus undetermined nephropathy, having heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, cancer, liver disease, dementia and psychiatric illness, and receiving dialysis by catheter rather than fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

. The study shows that the mortality rate in patients with end-stage renal disease starting hemodialysis in the Lazio region was stable over 9 years.

Measuring quality of life in trials including patients on haemodialysis: methodological issues surrounding the use of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) treatment causes a significant decrease in quality of life (QoL). When enrolled in a clinical trial, some patients are lost prior to follow-up because they die or they receive a kidney transplant. It is unclear how these patients are dealt with in the analysis of QoL data. There are questions surrounding the consistency of how QoL measures are used, reported and analysed.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases for trials measuring QoL in HD patients using any variation of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQoL) Questionnaire was conducted. The review was conducted in Covidence version 2. Quantitative analysis was conducted in Stata version 16.

RESULTS

We included 61 trials in the review, of which 82% reported dropouts. The methods to account for missing data due to dropouts include imputation (7%) and complete case analysis (72%). Few trials (7%) conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of missing data on the study results. Single imputation techniques were used, but are only valid under strong assumptions regarding the type and pattern of missingness. There was inconsistency in the reporting of the KDQoL, with many articles (70%) amending the validated questionnaires or reporting only statistically significant results.

CONCLUSIONS

Missing data are not dealt with according to the missing data mechanism, which may lead to biased results. Inconsistency in the use of patient-reported outcome measures raises questions about the validity of these trials. Methodological issues in nephrology trials could be a contributing factor to why there are limited effective interventions to improve QoL in this patient group.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42020223869.

Updates on hemodialysis techniques with a common denominator: The personalization of the dialytic therapy

Hemodialysis (HD) is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. In dialyzed patients, the prevalence of multi-morbidity is rising driven by various factors, such as the population aging, the incomplete correction of uremia, and the side effects of the dialysis therapy itself. Each dialyzed patient has their own specific clinical and biochemical problems. It is therefore unthinkable that the same dialysis procedure can be able to meet the needs of every patient on chronic dialysis. We have very sophisticated dialysis machines and different dialysis techniques and procedures beyond conventional HD, such as hemodiafiltration (HDF) with pre- and post-dilution, acetate-free biofiltration (AFB), hemofiltration (HF), and expanded HD. Each of these techniques has its own specific characteristics. To solve some intradialytic clinical issues, such as arterial hypotension and arrhythmias, we have biofeedback systems with automatic regulation of the blood volume, body temperature, arterial pressure, as well as potassium profiling techniques in the dialysis bath. New technical innovations, such as citrate-containing dialysate or heparin-coated membranes, could reduce the risk of bleeding. To better address to patient needs, the strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems must be well-known, in order to have a personalized dialysis prescription for each patient.

Management of acute intradialytic cardiovascular complications: Updated overview (Review)

An increasing number of patients require renal replacement therapy through dialysis and renal transplantation. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects a large percentage of the world's population and has evolved into a major public health concern. Diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure and a family history of kidney failure are all major risk factors for CKD. Patients in advanced stages of CKD have varying degrees of cardiovascular damage. Comorbidities of these patients, include, on the one hand, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia and, on the other hand, the presence of mineral-bone disorders associated with CKD and chronic inflammation, which contribute to cardiovascular involvement. Acute complications occur quite frequently during dialysis. Among these, the most important are cardiovascular complications, which influence the morbidity and mortality rates of this group of patients. Chronic hemodialysis patients manifest acute cardiovascular complications such as intradialytic hypotension, intradialytic hypertension, arrhythmias, acute coronary syndromes and sudden death. Thus, proper management is extremely important.

Leveraging Data Science for a Personalized Haemodialysis

Background

The 2019 Science for Dialysis Meeting at Bellvitge University Hospital was devoted to the challenges and opportunities posed by the use of data science to facilitate precision and personalized medicine in nephrology, and to describe new approaches and technologies. The meeting included separate sections for issues in data collection and data analysis. As part of data collection, we presented the institutional ARGOS e-health project, which provides a common model for the standardization of clinical practice. We also pay specific attention to the way in which randomized controlled trials offer data that may be critical to decision-making in the real world. The opportunities of open source software (OSS) for data science in clinical practice were also discussed.

Summary

Precision medicine aims to provide the right treatment for the right patients at the right time and is deeply connected to data science. Dialysis patients are highly dependent on technology to live, and their treatment generates a huge volume of data that has to be analysed. Data science has emerged as a tool to provide an integrated approach to data collection, storage, cleaning, processing, analysis, and interpretation from potentially large volumes of information. This is meant to be a perspective article about data science based on the experience of the experts invited to the Science for Dialysis Meeting and provides an up-to-date perspective of the potential of data science in kidney disease and dialysis.

Key messages

Healthcare is quickly becoming data-dependent, and data science is a discipline that holds the promise of contributing to the development of personalized medicine, although nephrology still lags behind in this process. The key idea is to ensure that data will guide medical decisions based on individual patient characteristics rather than on averages over a whole population usually based on randomized controlled trials that excluded kidney disease patients. Furthermore, there is increasing interest in obtaining data about the effectiveness of available treatments in current patient care based on pragmatic clinical trials. The use of data science in this context is becoming increasingly feasible in part thanks to the swift developments in OSS.

Integration of Blood Volume, Blood Pressure, Heart Rate and Bioimpedance Monitoring for the Achievement of Optimal Dry Body Weight during Chronic Hemodialysis

Background

Achieving optimal dry body weight in hemodialysis is challenging. Clinical assessment alone is inadequate, and methods such as bioimpedance monitoring may be impractical for every patient treatment. Continuous blood volume monitoring, blood pressure and heart rate variability inform clinical decision-making, but integrated use of multiple methodologies to achieve dry weight and understand patient factors has not yet been described.

Methods

Nineteen chronic hemodialysis patients underwent thrice-weekly treatments for two weeks. Baseline hydration status and target weight were determined by bioimpedance. During subsequent treatments, ultrafiltration was adjusted and relative blood volume, blood pressure and pulse were recorded non-invasively Bioimpedance was repeated to assess hydration. Response of variables to progressive change in weight was assessed and selected patients underwent additional autonomic function testing.

Results

Four distinct hemodynamic patterns emerged. Profile A: 4 patients demonstrated overhydration at baseline. With decreasing target, pulse and blood pressure remained stable while blood volume and bioimpedance demonstrated achievement of dry weight. Profile B: 8 patients demonstrated overhydration at baseline. With decreasing target, blood pressure remained stable while pulse increased. Profile C: 5 patients were overhydrated, but as weight decreased, blood pressure became unstable and heart rate failed to compensate. Further testing confirmed autonomic dysfunction. Profile D: 2 patients were dehydrated, and with increasing target demonstrated stable pulse and pressure, while blood volume and bioimpedance revealed achievement of dry weight.

Conclusions

Integrating existing non-invasive, continuous monitoring during hemodialysis enabled achievement of dry weight and identified distinct profiles of the patients, some with autonomic dysfunction. This strategy may contribute to achieving optimum dry weight while improving cardiovascular tolerability of hemodialysis.

Cardiovascular Risk in Hemodialysis Patients: A Mechanistic Approach

A new formula is proposed to express the excess burden of cardiovascular risk faced by hemodialysis patients as a function of various inherent, acquired and potentially modifiable factors. The proposed equation CVRHD = CVRB X f(([CKD+HD]/[HDtech+Dr])+X) includes the terms: CVRHD (cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis patients); CVRB (baseline cardiovascular risk); CKD (risk associated with chronic kidney disease); HD (risks associated with the process of hemodialysis); HDtech (benefits of new hemodialysis technologies); Dr (benefits of drug therapies) and X (unknown or putative factors influencing cardiovascular morbidity).

We review the various factors included in this proposed formula, touching upon the epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapeutic implications, including possible strategies to modify risk. As is apparent from the formula, CKD and HD in particular act as risk multipliers in augmenting or amplifying the baseline cardiovascular risk, while new hemodialysis technologies may provide an opportunity for “cardioprotective dialysis.” Drug treatment may serve to mitigate some of the risk unique to this population.

Randomized Crossover Trial of Blood Volume Monitoring-Guided Ultrafiltration Biofeedback to Reduce Intradialytic Hypotensive Episodes with Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is associated with morbidity. The effect of blood volume-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback, which automatically adjusts fluid removal rate on the basis of blood volume parameters, on the reduction of IDH was tested in a randomized crossover trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a 22-week, single blind, randomized crossover trial in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who had >30% of sessions complicated by symptomatic IDH in five centers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Participants underwent a 4-week run-in period to standardize dialysis prescription and dry weight on the basis of clinical examination. Those meeting inclusion criteria were randomized to best clinical practice hemodialysis (control) or best clinical practice plus blood volume-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback (intervention) for 8 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout and subsequent crossover for a second 8-week phase. The primary outcome was rate of symptomatic IDH.

RESULTS

Thirty-five participants entered, 32 were randomized, and 26 completed the study. The rate of symptomatic IDH with biofeedback was 0.10/h (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.14) and 0.07/h (95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.10) during control (P=0.29). There were no differences in the rate or proportion of sessions with asymptomatic IDH or symptoms alone. Results remained consistent when adjusted for randomization order and study week. There were no differences between intervention and control in the last study week in interdialytic weight gain (difference [SD], -0.02 [0.8] kg), brain natriuretic peptide (1460 [19,052] ng/L), cardiac troponins (3 [86] ng/L), extracellular water-to-intracellular water ratio (0.05 [0.33]), ultrafiltration rate (1.1 [7.0] ml/kg per hour), and dialysis recovery time (0.43 [19.25] hours).

CONCLUSION

The use of blood volume monitoring-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback in patients prone to IDH did not reduce the rate of symptomatic IDH events.

Feasibility of intermittent back-filtrate infusion hemodiafiltration to reduce intradialytic hypotension in patients with cardiovascular instability: a pilot study

Background

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is one of the major problems in performing safe hemodialysis (HD). As blood volume depletion by fluid removal is a major cause of hypotension, careful regulation of blood volume change is fundamental. This study examined the effect of intermittent back-filtrate infusion hemodiafiltration (I-HDF), which modifies infusion and ultrafiltration pattern.

Methods

Purified on-line quality dialysate was intermittently infused by back filtration through the dialysis membrane with a programmed dialysis machine. A bolus of 200 ml of dialysate was infused at 30 min intervals. The volume infused was offset by increasing the fluid removal over the next 30 min by an equivalent amount. Seventy-seven hypotension-prone patients with over 20-mmHg reduction of systolic blood pressure during dialysis or intervention-requirement of more than once a week were included in the crossover study of 4 weeks duration for each modality. In a total of 1632 sessions, the frequency of interventions, the blood pressure, and the pulse rate were documented.

Results

During I-HDF, interventions for symptomatic hypotension were reduced significantly from 4.5 to 3.0 (per person-month, median) and intradialytic systolic blood pressure was 4 mmHg higher on average. The heart rate was lower during I-HDF than HD in the later session. Older patients and those with greater interdialytic weight gain responded to I-HDF.

Conclusions

I-HDF could reduce interventions for IDH. It is accompanied with the increased intradialytic blood pressure and the less tachycardia, suggesting less sympathetic stimulation occurs. Thus, I-HDF could be beneficial for some hypotension-prone patients.

UMIN registration number

000013816.

Intradialytic hypotension and cardiac remodeling: a vicious cycle

Hemodynamic instability during hemodialysis is a common but often underestimated issue in the nephrologist practice. Intradialytic hypotension, namely, a decrease of systolic or mean blood pressure to a certain level, prohibits the safe and smooth achievement of ultrafiltration and solute removal goal in chronic dialysis patients. Studies have elucidated the potential mechanisms involved in the development of Intradialytic hypotension, including excessive ultrafiltration and loss of compensatory mechanisms for blood pressure maintenance. Cardiac remodeling could also be one important piece of the puzzle. In this review, we intend to discuss the role of cardiac remodeling, including left ventricular hypertrophy, in the development of Intradialytic hypotension. In addition, we will also provide evidence that a bidirectional relationship might exist between Intradialytic hypotension and left ventricular hypertrophy in chronic dialysis patients. A more complete understanding of the complex interactions in between could assist the readers in formulating potential solutions for the reduction of both phenomena.

Ultrafiltration biofeedback guided by blood volume monitoring to reduce intradialytic hypotensive episodes in hemodialysis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid removal during dialysis, also known as ultrafiltration (UF), leads to intradialytic hypotension (IDH) in a significant number of patients treated with hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. At present, there are no accepted standards of practice for the prevention or treatment of IDH. Relative blood volume monitoring (BVM) is based on the concept that the hematocrit increases with UF, relative to the patient's baseline hematocrit. The use of BVM biofeedback, whereby the HD machine automatically adjusts the rate of UF based on the relative blood volume, has been proposed for the prevention of IDH.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a 22-week randomized crossover trial. Participants undergo a 4-week run-in phase to standardize medications and dialysis prescriptions. Subsequently, participants are randomized to standard HD or to BVM biofeedback for a period of 8 weeks followed by a 2-week washout phase before crossing over. The dialysis prescription remains identical for both arms. The primary outcome is the frequency of symptomatic IDH as defined by an abrupt drop in the systolic blood pressure of ≥ 20 mm Hg accompanied by headache, dizziness, loss of consciousness, thirst, dyspnea, angina, muscle cramps or vomiting. Secondary outcomes include the number of symptomatic IDH episodes and any reduction in IDH episodes, nursing interventions, dialysis adequacy, total body water, extra- and intracellular fluid volumes, brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac troponin levels, blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, patient symptoms and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Our study will determine the impact of using BVM biofeedback to prevent IDH and other serious adverse events in susceptible patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01988181 (6 November 2013).

Vasopressin and prevention of hypotension during hemodialysis

CONTEXT

The occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (IDH) during hemodialysis (HD) continues to be a main problem in patients with ESRD (end-stage kidney disease). It also negatively affects health-related quality of life. We aimed to determine vasopressin effect in decreasing IDH.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We reviewed clinical and experimental literature in a variety of sources, including PubMed, Current Content, Scopus, Embase, and Iranmedex regarding the possible effect of vasopressin administration in prevention of hypotension during HD to clarify its mechanism, efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS

Although arginine vasopressin is widely recognized for its anti-diuretic properties, it is also a well-recognized vasoconstrictor. It has been shown that the vasopressin release (as it would normally be expected) does not increase in the majority of HD patients with recurrent dialysis hypotension. In addition, it has also been reported that vasopressin secretion (due to the osmotic stimulation) is the most important mechanism in blood pressure control in ESRD patients receiving hypertonic solution for IDH. Therefore, it is suggested that vasopressin administration may improve hemodynamic stability among ESRD patients during HD. There are few clinical trials about this issue, suggesting that administration of exogenous vasopressin may be significantly associated with a decreased incidence of IDH as well as cardiovascular stability in ESRD patients in need of volume removal during HD.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasopressin insufficiency may have an important role in the pathogenesis of hemodynamic instability during HD and administration of exogenous vasopressin is significantly associated with a lower incidence of IDH.

Efficacy of hemocontrol biofeedback system in intradialytic hypotension-prone hemodialysis patients

We conducted a study to determine whether the hemocontrol biofeedback system (HBS) can improve intradialytic hypotension (IDH) in hypotension-prone hemodialysis (HD) patients compared with conventional HD. In this multicenter prospective crossover study, 60 hypotension-prone patients were serially treated by conventional HD for 8 weeks (period A), by HD with hemoscan blood volume monitoring for 2 weeks (period B0), and by HBS HD for 8 weeks (period B1). The number of sessions complicated by symptomatic IDH during 24 HD sessions (14.9 ± 5.8 sessions, 62.1% in period A vs 9.2 ± 7.2 sessions, 38.4% in period B1, P<0.001) and the number of IDH-related nursing interventions in a session (0.96 ± 0.66 in period A vs 0.56 ± 0.54 in period B1, P<0.001) significantly decreased in period B1 than in period A. Recovery time from fatigue after dialysis was significantly shorter in period B1 than in period A. The patients with higher post-dialysis blood pressure, lower difference between pre- and post-dialysis blood pressure, less frequent IDH, and higher pre- and post-dialysis body weight in period A responded better to HBS in period B1 in regard to the reduction of IDH. In conclusion, HBS may improve the patient tolerability to HD by reducing the IDH frequency and promoting faster recovery from fatigue after dialysis.

The dialysis staff workload and the blood volume tracking system during the hemodialysis sessions of hypotension-prone patients

PURPOSE

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) represents a common hemodialysis (HD) complication. Blood volume tracking (BVT) is a tool regulating the relative blood volume changes and potentially reducing the occurrence of IDH. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of BVT to reduce the staff workload associated to IDH.

METHODS

Ten hypotension-prone HD patients were treated each with 39 conventional HD (HD) sessions and then switched to 39 HD sessions with BVT (HD-BVT). The staff interventions related to IDH were monitored by a trained staff.

RESULTS

Dialysis sessions complicated by IDH and staff interventions were affected by BVT (HD: 102 and 127 vs. HD-BVT: 57 and 59, respectively, for both p<0.001). The time consumed by staff in IDH management was decreased by HD-BVT (1416 vs. 578 min, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of BVT to reduce the frequency of IDH leads to a reduction of the dialysis staff workload with fewer staff interventions, allowing for major work-time saving.

Ambulatory blood pressure in chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States. Patients with CKD have an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) provides superior BP measurements when compared to office BP measurements in normotensive, hypertensive and CKD patients. ABPM measurements are often abnormal in CKD, with CKD patients frequently showing an altered circadian rhythm with an increased rate of non-dipping and reverse dipping. The prevalence of non-dippers and reverse-dippers increases progressively as stage of CKD progresses. ABPM has been shown to be a better tool for predicting CV risk, CKD progression, end stage renal disease (ESRD) or death than office-based pressures. ABPM is also additive and adds prognostic value for predicting CKD and CV outcomes when added to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Although ABPM is time consuming, it is worth considering, as the data demonstrates that information from ABPM can potentially impact future CV and renal outcomes in patients with CKD.

Biofeedback dialysis for hypotension and hypervolemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is associated with morbidity and mortality. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether biofeedback hemodialysis (HD) can improve IDH and other outcomes, compared with HD without biofeedback.

METHODS

Data sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. We included randomized trials that enrolled adult patients (>18 years) with IDH or extracellular fluid expansion and that used biofeedback to guide ultrafiltration and/or dialysate conductivity. Two authors assessed trial quality and independently extracted data in duplicate. We assessed heterogeneity using I(2). We applied the GRADE framework for rating the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We found two parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trials and six randomized crossover trials meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were open-label and at least four were industry-sponsored. Studies were small (median n = 27). No study evaluated hospitalization and the evidence for effect on mortality was of very low quality. Three studies assessed quality of life (QoL); none demonstrated benefit or harm, and quality of evidence was very low. Biofeedback significantly reduced IDH (risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.86; I(2)= 0%). Quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to risk of bias and potential publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback dialysis significantly reduces the frequency of IDH. Large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to assess the effects on survival, hospitalization and QoL.

[Time course of digital pressure during dialysis sessions in chronic hemodialysis patients. Prospective observational study of 49 patients]

OBJECTIVES

To describe and compare the evolution of digital pressure on both hands during a dialysis session in patients without digital ischemia, and to identify the parameters influencing the digital pressure.

MATERIALS

Patients with an upper limb vascular access were prospectively included. Digital systolic pressure on the third finger of both hands measured by photoplethysmography and brachial systolic pressure were recorded before dialysis (H0) and every hour (from H1 to H4).

RESULTS

Among 53 patients, 49 were included (exclusions: one surgery for ischemia, one hand tremor, two no consent). None of them had digital ischemia. Digital pressure homolateral to the vascular access was significantly lower compared with controlateral side before and during dialysis. Digital pressure significantly decreased on both sides during dialysis. Brachial pressure decreased significantly compared to H0. Only the brachial pressure decrease was correlated with the decrease of digital pressure. The digital pressure was less than 30 mmHg in six patients. No evidence of digital ischemia was reported after a 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a significant decrease of digital pressure in both hands during hemodialysis in patients without digital ischemia. Further studies are necessary to investigate which parameters can affect digital pressure and to look for clinical consequence of this measurement.

Challenges in blood pressure measurement in patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis

The association between blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis remains controversial. This may relate in part to the technique and device used and the timing of the blood pressure measurement in relation to the hemodialysis procedure. Emerging evidence indicates that standardized hemodialysis unit blood pressure measurements or measurements obtained at home, either by the patient or using an ambulatory blood pressure monitor, may offer advantages over routine hemodialysis unit blood pressure measurements for determining cardiovascular risk and treatment. This review discusses the available evidence and implications for clinicians and clinical trials.

Home blood pressure measurements for managing hypertension in hemodialysis patients

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring serves as a practical method to detect changes in BP instead of ambulatory BP monitoring in hemodialysis patients. To evaluate the relationship of reduction in home BP compared to interdialytic ambulatory BP measurements we analyzed the data from the dry-weight reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients (DRIP) trial in which 100 patients had their dry weight probed based on clinical sign and symptoms and 50 patients served as controls. We measured home BP 3 times a day for 1 week using a validated oscillometric monitor on 3 occasions at 4-week intervals after randomization. Changes from baseline in home, predialysis BP and postdialysis BP were compared to interdialytic 44-hour ambulatory BP. Home and ambulatory BP monitoring was available in 141 of 150 (94%) patients. Predialysis systolic BP was not as sensitive as ambulatory BP in detecting change in BP with dry-weight reduction. Whereas postdialysis BP was capable of detecting an improvement in systolic BP in response to probing dry weight, by itself it does not provide evidence that change in postdialysis BP persists over the interdialytic period. Home BP reliably detected changes in ambulatory BP, albeit with less sensitivity at 4 weeks. However, at 4 and at 8 weeks, changes in home systolic BP were most strongly related to changes in interdialytic ambulatory systolic BP compared to predialysis and postdialysis BP. The reproducibility of BP measurements followed the order home > ambulatory >> predialysis > postdialysis. These data provide support for the use of home BP monitoring for the management of hypertension in hemodialysis patients.