Search

Background In chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients, the relationship between long-term peridialytic blood pressure (BP) changes and mortality has not been investigated. Methods To evaluate whether long-term changes in peridialytic BP are related to mortality and whether treatment with HD or haemodiafiltration (HDF) differs in this respect, the combined individual participant data of three randomized controlled trials comparing HD with HDF were used. Time-varying Cox regression and joint models were applied. Results During a median follow-up of 2.94 years, 609 of 2011 patients died. As for pre-dialytic systolic BP (pre-SBP), a severe decline (≥21 mmHg) in the preceding 6 months was independently related to increased mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.61, P  = .01] when compared with a moderate increase. Likewise, a severe decline in post-dialytic diastolic BP (DBP) was associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.96, P  < .0005). In contrast, joint models showed that every 5-mmHg increase in pre-SBP and post-DBP during total follow-up was related to reduced mortality (adjusted HR 0.97, P  = .01 and 0.94, P  = .03, respectively). No interaction was observed between BP changes and treatment modality. Conclusion Severe declines in pre-SBP and post-DBP in the preceding 6 months were independently related to mortality. Therefore peridialytic BP values should be interpreted in the context of their changes and not solely as an absolute value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The timing at which venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs after major surgery has major implications for the optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the timing of postoperative VTE up to 4 weeks after surgery. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases was performed between 1 January 2009 and 1 April 2022. Prospective studies that recruited patients who underwent a surgical procedure and reported at least 20 symptomatic, postoperative VTE events by time were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies according to the eligibility criteria, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Data were analysed with a Poisson regression model, and the GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Results: Some 6258 studies were evaluated, of which 22 (11 general, 5 urological, 4 mixed, and 2 orthopaedic postoperative surgical populations; total 1 864 875 patients and 24 927 VTE events) were eligible. Pooled evidence of moderate certainty showed that 47.1 per cent of the VTE events occurred during the first, 26.9 per cent during the second, 15.8 per cent during the third, and 10.1 per cent during the fourth week after surgery. The timing of VTE was consistent between individual studies. Conclusion: Although nearly half of symptomatic VTE events in first 4 weeks occur during the first postoperative week, a substantial number of events occur several weeks after surgery. These data will inform clinicians and guideline developers about the duration of postoperative thromboprophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Previous studies suggest that haemodiafiltration reduces mortality compared with haemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but the controversy surrounding its benefits remains and it is unclear to what extent individual patients benefit from haemodiafiltration. This study is aimed to develop and validate a treatment effect prediction model to determine which patients would benefit most from haemodiafiltration compared with haemodialysis in terms of all-cause mortality. Methods Individual participant data from four randomized controlled trials comparing haemodiafiltration with haemodialysis on mortality were used to derive a Royston-Parmar model for the prediction of absolute treatment effect of haemodiafiltration based on pre-specified patient and disease characteristics. Validation of the model was performed using internal-external cross validation. Results The median predicted survival benefit was 44 (Q1–Q3: 44–46) days for every year of treatment with haemodiafiltration compared with haemodialysis. The median survival benefit with haemodiafiltration ranged from 2 to 48 months. Patients who benefitted most from haemodiafiltration were younger, less likely to have diabetes or a cardiovascular history and had higher serum creatinine and albumin levels. Internal–external cross validation showed adequate discrimination and calibration. Conclusion Although overall mortality is reduced by haemodiafiltration compared with haemodialysis in ESKD patients, the absolute survival benefit can vary greatly between individuals. Our results indicate that the effects of haemodiafiltration on survival can be predicted using a combination of readily available patient and disease characteristics, which could guide shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a greater removal of larger solutes and protein-bound compounds than conventional high-flux haemodialysis (HD). There are indications that the patients receiving the highest convection volumes of HDF result in improved survival compared with HD. However, the comparative efficacy of HDF versus HD remains unproven. Here we provide a comparative account of the methodology and aims of 'the comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD' (CONVINCE) study in the context of the totality of evidence and how this study will contribute to reaching a higher level of certainty regarding the comparative efficacy of HDF versus HD in people with end-stage kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) represents a major cause of death in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The precise estimate of its incidence is difficult to establish because studies on the incidence of SCD in ESKD are often combined with those related to sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurring during a haemodialysis (HD) session. The aim of the European Dialysis Working Group of ERA-EDTA was to critically review the current literature examining the causes of extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA in ESKD patients and potential management strategies to reduce the incidence of such events. Extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA represent different clinical situations and should be kept distinct. Regarding the problem, numerically less relevant, of patients affected by intradialysis SCA, some modifiable risk factors have been identified, such as a low concentration of potassium and calcium in the dialysate, and some advantages linked to the presence of automated external defibrillators in dialysis units have been documented. The problem of extra-dialysis SCD is more complex. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction associated with SCD is present only in a minority of cases occurring in HD patients. This is the proof that SCD occurring in ESKD has different characteristics compared with SCD occurring in patients with ischaemic heart disease and/or heart failure and not affected by ESKD. Recent evidence suggests that the fatal arrhythmia in this population may be due more frequently to bradyarrhythmias than to tachyarrhythmias. This fact may partly explain why several studies could not demonstrate an advantage of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in preventing SCD in ESKD patients. Electrolyte imbalances, frequently present in HD patients, could explain part of the arrhythmic phenomena, as suggested by the relationship between SCD and timing of the HD session. However, the high incidence of SCD in patients on peritoneal dialysis suggests that other risk factors due to cardiac comorbidities and uraemia per se may contribute to sudden mortality in ESKD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]