Comparison of whole body versus thoracic bioimpedance in relation to ultrafiltration volume and systolic blood pressure during hemodialysis

In contrast to whole body bioimpedance, which estimates fluid status at a single point in time, thoracic bioimpedance applied by a wearable device could enable continuous measurements. However, clinical experience with thoracic bioimpedance in patients on dialysis is limited. To test the reproducibility of whole body and thoracic bioimpedance measurements and to compare their relationship with hemodynamic changes during hemodialysis, these parameters were measured pre- and end-dialysis in 54 patients during two sessions. The resistance from both bioimpedance techniques was moderately reproducible between two dialysis sessions (intraclass correlations of pre- to end-dialysis whole body and thoracic resistance between session 1 and 2 were 0.711 [0.58-0.8] and 0.723 [0.6-0.81], respectively). There was a very high to high correlation between changes in ultrafiltration volume and changes in whole body thoracic resistance. Changes in systolic blood pressure negatively correlated to both bioimpedance techniques. Although the relationship between changes in ultrafiltration volume and changes in resistance was stronger for whole body bioimpedance, the relationship with changes in blood pressure was at least comparable for thoracic measurements. These results suggest that thoracic bioimpedance, measured by a wearable device, may serve as an interesting alternative to whole body measurements for continuous hemodynamic monitoring during hemodialysis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We examined the role of whole body and thoracic bioimpedance in hemodynamic changes during hemodialysis. Whole body and thoracic bioimpedance signals were strongly related to ultrafiltration volume and moderately, negatively, to changes in blood pressure. This work supports the further development of a wearable device measuring thoracic bioimpedance longitudinally in patients on hemodialysis. As such, it may serve as an innovative tool for continuous hemodynamic monitoring during hemodialysis in hospital or in a home-based setting.

Visit-to-visit ultrafiltration volume variability predicts all-cause mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis

PURPOSE

Little is known about the effect of visit-to-visit ultrafiltration volume (UV) variability on the outcome. In this study, we investigated the association between visit-to-visit UV variability and all-cause mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We consecutively enrolled patients who received maintenance HD in our center from March 2015 to March 2021. UV variability was defined using standard deviation (UVSD) and coefficient of variation (UVCV) (standard deviation divided by the mean). The relationship between UV variability and all-cause mortality was assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the predictive abilities of UVSD and UVCV for short-term and long-term survival rates.

RESULTS

A total of 283 HD patients were included. The mean age was 57.54 years, and 53% were males. Follow-up was done for a median of 3.38 years (IQR 1.83-4.78). During the follow-up period, 73 patients died. Cox proportional hazards models indicated that UVSD and UVCV (higher versus lower) were positively associated with all-cause mortality (p=.003 and p<.001, respectively), while in multivariable-adjusted models, only higher UVCV remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality in patients receiving HD (HR 2.55 (95% CI 1.397-4.654), p=.002). Moreover, subgroup analyses showed that the predictive performance of UVCV was more accurate among older patients, males and patients with comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Visit-to-visit UV variability, especially UVCV, is a helpful indicator for predicting all-cause mortality in patients receiving HD, especially for older patients, males and those with comorbidities.

Characterization of sodium removal to ultrafiltration volume in a peritoneal dialysis outpatient cohort

Background

Failure to control volume is the second most common cause of peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure. Sodium is primarily removed by convection, but according to the three-pore model, water and sodium movements are not necessarily concordant. We wished to determine factors increasing sodium to water clearance in clinical practice.

Methods

We reviewed 24-h peritoneal dialytic sodium removal (DSR) and ultrafiltration (UF) volume in consecutive PD patients attending for routine assessment of peritoneal membrane function and adequacy testing. We used a regression model with the DSR/UF ratio as the dependent variable. A second model with DSR as the dependent variable and interaction testing for UF was used as sensitivity analysis.

Results

We included 718 adult PD patients. Mean values were 51.8 ± 64.6 mmol/day and 512 ± 517 mL/day for DSR and UF, respectively. In multivariable analysis, DSR/UF ratio was positively associated with transport type (fast versus slow, P < 0.001), serum sodium (P < 0.001) and diabetes (P = 0.026), and negatively associated with PD mode [automated PD versus continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), P < 0.001] and the use of 2.27% glucose dialysate (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed positive interaction with UF for transport type (P < 0.001) and serum sodium (P = 0.032) and negative interaction for PD mode (P < 0.001) and cycles number (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

CAPD, fast transport and high serum sodium allow relatively more sodium to be removed compared with water. Icodextrin has no effect on sodium removal once confounders have been accounted for. Although widely used in the assessment of PD patients, UF should not be considered as a surrogate for DSR in clinical practice.