Does intradialytic oral nutrition impact hemodialysis patients' quality of Life, appetite, and safety? A pilot study of a crossover clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

due to the catabolic characteristics of hemodialysis (HD), patients should consume foods or supplements during this treatment to meet their energy requirements and maintain a neutral nitrogen balance; however, there are some outcomes in which the effect of intradialytic oral nutrition (ION) is scarcely known.

OBJECTIVES

this study aims to evaluate the effect of two types of ION (liquid and solid) on QoL, appetite, and safety in HD patients.

METHODS

a pilot randomized, crossover clinical trial was performed in 18 patients on chronic HD. One group received ION for 18 HD sessions, after the crossover continued for 18 more sessions in the control group, and vice versa. We recorded QoL, appetite, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and intradialytic hypotension (IH) events.

RESULTS

clinical improvement was observed for most QoL components. Regardless of the consistency of supplementation, SBP increased to 4.10 mmHg. Both study groups reported a "very good-to-good" appetite.

CONCLUSION

favorable clinical changes were observed in QoL scores during the study. Five of six IH events were reported for patients in the ION group, and SBP increased within the safe range (≤ 10 mmHg); appetite remained stable in both groups. Therefore, we concluded that this strategy, regardless of implementation consistency, is safe to be used in stable patients.

Nutritional Status and Other Clinical Variables Are Associated to the Resting Energy Expenditure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Validity Study

Background

Estimating energy requirements (ER) is crucial for nutritional attention to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Current guidelines recommend measuring ER with indirect calorimetry (IC) when possible. Due to clinical settings, the use of simple formulas is preferred. Few studies have modeled equations for estimating ER for CKD. Nevertheless, variables of interest such as nutritional status and strength have not been explored in these models. This study aimed to develop and validate a model for estimating REE in patients with CKD stages 3–5, who were not receiving renal replacement therapy (RTT), using clinical variables and comparing it with indirect calorimetry as the gold standard.

Methods

In this study 80 patients with CKD participated. Indirect calorimetry (IC) was performed in all patients. The calorimeter analyzed metabolic measurements every minute for 15 min after autocalibration with barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) was performed. Fat-free mass (FFM) was registered among other bioelectrical components. Handgrip strength (HGS) was evaluated and an average of 3 repetitions was recorded. Nutritional status was assessed with the subjective global assessment (SGA). Patients categorized as B or C were then considered as having malnutrition.

Results

We analyzed 71 patients and 3 models were generated. Model 1a included FFM; Model 2a included weight; Model 3c included handgrip strength (HGS). All other variables were stepwise, computer-selected with a p < 0.01 significance level; Malnutrition was consistently associated with ER among other clinical variables in all models (p < 0.05). The model that included BIA-FFM had R²_adjusted = 0.46, while the model that included weight (Kg) had an adjusted R²_adjusted = 0.44. The models had moderate concordance, LC = 0.60–0.65 with the gold standard, whereas other energy expenditure estimation equations had LC = 0.36 and 0.55 with indirect calorimetry. Using these previously validated equations as a reference, our models had concordance values ranging from 0.66 to 0.80 with them.

Conclusion

Models incorporating nutritional status and other clinical variables such as weight, FFM, comorbidities, gender, and age have a moderate agreement with REE. The agreement between our models and others previously validated for the CKD patient is good; however, the agreement between the latter and IC measurements is moderate. The KDOQI lowest recommendation (25 Kcals/kg body weight) considering the 22% difference with respect to the IC for total energy expenditure rather than for REE.