Nephrologists Rather Than Intensivists Should Manage Kidney Replacement Therapy in the ICU: CON

Prevention of Intradialytic Hypotension in Hemodialysis Patients: Current Challenges and Future Prospects

Intradialytic hypotension, defined as rapid decrease in systolic blood pressure of greater than or equal to 20 mmHg or in mean arterial pressure of greater than or equal to 10 mmHg that results in end-organ ischemia and requires countermeasures such as ultrafiltration reduction or saline infusion to increase blood pressure to improve patient's symptoms, is a known complication of hemodialysis and is associated with several potential adverse outcomes. Its pathogenesis is complex and involves both patient-related factors such as age and comorbidities, as well as factors related to the dialysis prescription itself. Key factors include the need for volume removal during hemodialysis and a suboptimal vascular response which compromises the ability to compensate for acute intravascular volume loss. Inadequate vascular refill, incorrect assessment or unaccounted changes of target weight, acute illnesses and medication interference are further potential contributors. Intradialytic hypotension can lead to compromised tissue perfusion and end-organ damage, both acutely and over time, resulting in repetitive injuries. To address these problems, a careful assessment of subjective symptoms, minimizing interdialytic weight gains, individualizing dialysis prescription and adjusting the dialysis procedure based on patients' risk factors can mitigate negative outcomes.

Debate: Intermittent Hemodialysis versus Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient: The Choice Should Be Evidence Based

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) plays a major role in the treatment of severe AKI. Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) and continuous KRT (CKRT) are the main modalities in critically ill patients with AKI. CKRT is the preferred modality in many countries because of its alleged superiority on both hemodynamic tolerance and on kidney function recovery. In fact, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two modalities have not shown any actual benefit of one technique over the other on mortality, hemodynamics, or kidney function recovery. Those RCTs were conducted more than 15 years ago. Major progress was eventually made leading to much lower mortality rates in recent studies than in previous studies. In addition, those RCTs included a noticeable proportion of patients who could have recovered without ever receiving KRT, as demonstrated by several recent studies. In the absence of evidence of clinical superiority of one KRT modality, the choice must be addressed not only regarding clinical outcome but also resources and logistics. Conclusions of health technology assessments and study reports were heterogeneous and conflicting concerning cost-effectiveness of intermittent HD versus CKRT. All these considerations justify a reevaluation of the issue in new RCTs that take into account recent knowledge on KRT initiation and management. Pending results of such study, the choice should be guided mainly by organizational considerations in each unit and without condemning any modality in the absence of proof.