A Randomized Controlled Trial of Comparative Efficacy between Sodium Bicarbonate and Heparin as A Locking Solution for Tunneled Central Venous Catheters Among Patients Requiring Maintenance Hemodialysis

Background:

Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃) is one of the promising solutions that has good safety profile and theoretical advantages regarding antimicrobial and antithrombotic properties but there are still limited reports.

Objective:

To compare the efficacy in lowering rate of catheter loss due to catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) or catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) between sodium bicarbonate and heparin lock in prevalent chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients.

Design:

A multicenter, randomized, open-label study

Setting:

In a developing country, Thailand

Patients:

Chronic HD patients with tunneled central venous catheter

Measurements:

Catheter loss rate, rate of catheter-related blood stream infection, catheter-related thrombosis, and exit site or tunnel infection

Methods:

The prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted, we randomly assigned 118 patients undergoing HD with tunneled central venous catheter to receive a catheter locking solution of sodium bicarbonate or heparin. The primary outcome was a catheter loss rate due to CRT or CRBSI, while the secondary outcome was a composite outcome of CRT, CRBSI, or exit site/tunnel infection (ESI/TI).

Results:

The present study was stopped early due to an excess of catheter-related thrombosis in the sodium bicarbonate group. From the first 6 weeks of follow-up, there were no catheter losses due to CRT or CRBSI in both groups. The sodium bicarbonate group had a significantly higher rate of the secondary composite outcomes and this was entirely caused by CRT with the median time to thrombosis of 23.6 days. Every CRT event could be successfully rescued by using a single dose of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA).

Limitations:

Short follow-up period.

Conclusions:

In prevalent HD patients with tunneled CVCs, use of a sodium bicarbonate locking solution for prevention of CRT is inferior to heparin and is associated with a high rate of catheter-related thrombosis.

Trial registration:

The study was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR 20200610003

Effect of Maintenance Intravenous Iron Treatment on Erythropoietin Dose in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

There is no consensus on intravenous (IV) iron supplement dose, schedule, and serum ferritin target in functional iron deficiency anemia to maintain optimum target levels of iron stores by several guidelines.

Objective:

To examine the effect of IV iron supplementation to different targets of serum ferritin on erythropoietin dose and inflammatory markers in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients with functional iron deficiency anemia.

Design:

A multicenter, randomized, open-label study.

Setting:

In a developing country, Thailand.

Patients:

Chronic HD patients with functional iron deficiency anemia.

Measurements:

Erythropoietin resistance index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and fibroblast growth factor 23.

Methods:

Two hundred adult chronic HD patients with transferrin saturation less than 30% and serum ferritin of 200 to 400 ng/mL were randomized 1:1 to maintain serum ferritin 200 to 400 ng/mL (low-serum ferritin group, N = 100) or 600 to 700 ng/mL (high-serum ferritin group, N = 100). During a 6-week titration period, participants randomized to the high-serum ferritin group initially received 600 mg IV iron (100 mg every week), while the participants in the low-serum ferritin group did not receive IV iron. During the 6-month follow-up period, the dose of IV iron was adjusted by protocol.

Results:

The mean dose of IV iron was 108.3 ± 28.2 mg/month in the low-serum ferritin group and 192.3 ± 36.2 mg/month in the high-serum ferritin group. The mean serum ferritin was 367.0 ± 224.9 ng/mL in the low ferritin group and 619.6 ± 265.2 ng/mL in the high ferritin group. The erythropoietin resistance index was significantly decreased in the high-serum ferritin group compared to the low-serum ferritin group after receiving IV iron in the 6-week titration period (mean difference: −113.43 ± 189.14 vs 41.08 ± 207.38 unit/week/g/dL; P < .001) and 3-month follow-up period (mean differences: −88.88 ± 234.43 vs −10.48 ± 217.75 unit/week/g/dL; P = .02).

Limitations:

Short follow-up period.

Conclusion:

Maintaining a serum ferritin level of 600 to 700 ng/mL by IV iron administration of approximately 200 mg per month as a maintenance protocol can decrease erythropoietin dose requirements in chronic HD patients with functional iron deficiency anemia.

Trials registration:

The study was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20180903003.

Intraperitoneal Cefepime Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy of Cefazolin Plus Ceftazidime for Empirical Treatment of CAPD-Associated Peritonitis: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Noninferiority, Randomized, Controlled Trial

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Compared to combination therapy, intraperitoneal (IP) cefepime monotherapy for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD)-associated peritonitis may provide potential benefits in lowering staff burden, shortening time-consuming antibiotic preparation, and reducing bag contamination risk. This study sought to evaluate whether cefepime monotherapy is noninferior to combination regimens.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adult incident peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients with CAPD-associated peritonitis in 8 PD centers in Thailand.

INTERVENTIONS

Random assignment to either IP monotherapy of cefepime, 1g/d, or IP combination of cefazolin and ceftazidime, 1g/d, both given as continuous dosing.

OUTCOMES

Primary end point: resolution of peritonitis at day 10 (primary treatment response).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

initial response (day 5), complete cure (relapse/recurrence-free response 28 days after treatment completion), relapsing/recurrent peritonitis, and death from any cause. Noninferiority would be confirmed for the primary outcome if the lower margin of the 1-sided 95% CI was not less than-10% for difference in the primary response rate. A 2-sided 90% CI was used to demonstrate the upper or lower border of the 1-sided 95% CI.

RESULTS

There were 144 eligible patients with CAPD-associated peritonitis, of whom 70 and 74 patients were in the monotherapy and combination-therapy groups, respectively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were not different between the groups. The primary response was 82.6% in the monotherapy group and 81.1% in the combination-therapy group (treatment difference, 1.5%; 90% CI, -9.1% to 12.1%; P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the monotherapy group compared with the combination-therapy group in terms of initial response rate (65.7% vs 60.8%; treatment difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -10.8% to 20.6%; P=0.5) and complete cure rate (80.0% vs 80.6%; treatment difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -13.9% to 12.8%; P=0.7). Relapsing and recurrent peritonitis occurred in 4.6% and 4.6% of the monotherapy group and 4.2% and 5.6% of the combination-therapy group (P=0.9and P=0.8, respectively). There was nominally higher all-cause mortality in the monotherapy group (7.1% vs 2.7%; treatment difference, 4.4%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 11.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.2).

LIMITATION

Not double blind.

CONCLUSIONS

IP cefepime monotherapy was noninferior to conventional combination therapy for resolution of CAPD-associated peritonitis at day 10 and may be a reasonable alternative first-line treatment.

FUNDING

This study is supported by The Kidney Foundation of Thailand (R5879), Thailand; Rachadaphiseksompotch Fund (RA56/006) and Rachadaphicseksompotch Endorsement Fund (CU-GRS_61_06_30_01), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; National Research Council of Thailand (156/2560), Thailand; and Thailand Research Foundation (IRG5780017), Thailand.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02872038.