Search

Background: Frequent hemodialysis provided more than three times per week may lower mortality and improve health-related quality of life. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive. We evaluated the benefits and harms of frequent hemodialysis in people with kidney failure compared with standard hemodialysis., Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults on hemodialysis with highly sensitive searching in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar on 3 January 2024. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We adjudicated evidence certainty using GRADE., Results: From 11,142 unique citations, only seven studies involving 518 participants proved eligible. The effects of frequent hemodialysis on physical and mental health were imprecise due to few data. Frequent hemodialysis probably had uncertain effect on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.91, low certainty evidence). Data were not reported for death from cardiovascular causes, major cardiovascular events, fatigue or vascular access., Conclusion: The evidentiary basis for frequent hemodialysis is incomplete due to clinical trials with few or no events reported for mortality and cardiovascular outcome measures and few participants in which patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and symptoms were reported., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Natale et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The mental health of dialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been modulated by dialysis modality. Studies comparing mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients during the first 2 years of the pandemic are lacking., Methods: We conducted repeated cross-sectional and multivariable regression analyses to compare the mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients from March 2019 until August 2021 using data from the Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes. The study period was divided into one pre-pandemic and six 3-month pandemic periods (period 1-period 6). Mental health was assessed with the Mental Component Summary score of the 12-item Short Form health survey and mental symptoms of the Dialysis Symptom Index., Results: We included 1274 patients (968 on in-center hemodialysis and 306 on peritoneal dialysis). Mental Component Summary scores did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. In contrast, in-center hemodialysis patients more often reported nervousness during period 3 (27% vs 15%, P = 0.04), irritability and anxiety during period 3 (31% vs 18%, P = 0.03, 26% vs. 9%, P = 0.002, respectively) and period 4 (34% vs 22%, P = 0.04, 22% vs 11%, P = 0.03, respectively), and sadness in period 4 (38% vs 26%, P = 0.04) and period 5 (37% vs 22%, P = 0.009). Dialysis modality was independently associated with mental symptoms., Conclusions: In-center hemodialysis patients more often experienced mental symptoms compared to peritoneal dialysis patients from September 2020 to June 2021, which corresponds to the second lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health-related quality-of-life did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register NL6519, date of registration: 22 August, 2017., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Several studies have suggested that patients with kidney failure may benefit from high-dose hemodiafiltration as compared with standard hemodialysis. However, given the limitations of the various published studies, additional data are needed., Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure who had received high-flux hemodialysis for at least 3 months. All the patients were deemed to be candidates for a convection volume of at least 23 liters per session (as required for high-dose hemodiafiltration) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments. The patients were assigned to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration or continuation of conventional high-flux hemodialysis. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific death, a composite of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events, kidney transplantation, and recurrent all-cause or infection-related hospitalizations., Results: A total of 1360 patients underwent randomization: 683 to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration and 677 to receive high-flux hemodialysis. The median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 27 to 38). The mean convection volume during the trial in the hemodiafiltration group was 25.3 liters per session. Death from any cause occurred in 118 patients (17.3%) in the hemodiafiltration group and in 148 patients (21.9%) in the hemodialysis group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.93)., Conclusions: In patients with kidney failure resulting in kidney-replacement therapy, the use of high-dose hemodiafiltration resulted in a lower risk of death from any cause than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. (Funded by the European Commission Research and Innovation; CONVINCE Dutch Trial Register number, NTR7138.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) require a personalised strategy for cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) to reduce their high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite their high risk, patients with CKD appear to be underrepresented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological CVRM interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk (pharmacological CVRM interventions). As a result, it remains unclear whether the efficacy of these interventions found in patients without CKD is similarly applicable to patients with CKD. This evidence map aims to provide an overview of the availability of the evidence from pharmacological CVRM trials for patients with CKD by assessing how often patients with reduced kidney function are specifically excluded or included from RCTs on pharmacological CVRM interventions and whether studies report efficacy estimates of interventions specifically for kidney patients., Methods: We will perform a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant planned, ongoing, and completed RCTs on a broad range of CVRM medications after which we will retrieve the published protocols and papers via ClinicalTrials.gov itself, Embase, MEDLINE, or Google Scholar. We will include RCTs that investigate the efficacy of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, antihypertensives, glucose-lowering medication, and lipid-lowering medication on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and end-stage kidney disease in patients with a cardiovascular history or a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Two reviewers will independently screen trial records and their corresponding full-text publications to determine eligibility and extract data. Outcomes of interest are the exclusion of patients with reduced kidney function from RCTs and whether the study population was restricted to kidney patients or subgroup analyses were performed on kidney function. Results will be visualised in an evidence map., Discussion: The availability of evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological CVRM interventions in patients with CKD might be limited. Hence, we will identify knowledge gaps for future research. At the same time, the availability of evidence, or lack thereof, might warrant caution from healthcare decision-makers in making strong recommendations based on the extrapolation of results from studies to patients who were explicitly excluded from participation., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022296746., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Hemodiafiltration (HDF), in which both convective and diffusion methods are combined, yields an increased overall solute clearance compared with hemodialysis (HD), specifically for medium and larger molecular weight uremic toxins. Due to uncertainty in the treatment effects, the nephrology community still perceives the implementation of HDF and the achievement of high convective volume as complex. In this article, we review practical aspects of the implementation of HDF that can effectively deliver a high-volume HDF therapy and assure clinical performance to most patients. We also present an overview of the impact of high-volume HDF (compared to HD) on a series of relevant biochemical, patient-reported, and clinical outcomes, including uremic toxin removal, phosphate, Inflammation and oxidative stress, hemodynamic stability, cardiac outcomes, nutritional effects, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Due to a critical shortage of available kidney grafts, most patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5) require bridging dialysis support. It remains unclear whether treatment by different dialysis modalities changes the selection and/or preparation of a potential transplant candidate. Therefore, we assessed whether the likelihood of receiving kidney transplant (both living or deceased kidney donors) differs between haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with CKD5D., Methods: Individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials comparing online HDF with HD were used. Information on kidney transplant was obtained during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant was compared between HD and HDF, and evaluated across different subgroups: age, sex, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, albumin, dialysis vintage, fistula, and level of convection volume standardized to body surface area. Hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with a random effect for study., Results: After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1 to Q3: 1.9-3.0), 331 of the 1620 (20.4%) patients with CKD5D received a kidney transplant. This concerned 22% (n = 179) of patients who were treated with online HDF compared with 19% (n = 152) of patients who were treated with HD. No differences in the likelihood of undergoing a kidney transplant were found between the two dialysis modalities in both the crude analyse (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.33) and adjusted analysis for age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular history, albumin, and creatinine (HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.92-1.44). There was no evidence for a differential effect across subgroups based on patient- and disease-characteristics nor in different categories of convection volumes., Conclusions: Treatment with HD and HDF does not affect the selection and/or preparation of CKD5D patients for kidney transplant given that the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant does not differ between the dialysis modalities. These finding persisted across a variety of subgroups differing in patient and disease characteristics and is not affected by the level of convection volume delivered during HDF treatment sessions.

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., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Protein-bound uremic toxins (PBUTs) are predominantly excreted by renal tubular secretion and hardly removed by traditional hemodialysis (HD). Accumulation of PBUTs is proposed to contribute to the increased morbidity and mortality of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Preserved PBUT excretion in patients with residual kidney function (RKF) and/or increased PBUT clearance with improved dialysis techniques might improve the prognosis of patients with ESKD. The aims of this study are to explore determinants of PBUTs in HD patients, and investigate whether hemodiafiltration (HDF) lowers PBUT plasma concentrations, and whether PBUTs are related to the outcome. Predialysis total plasma concentrations of kynurenine, kynurenic acid, indoxyl sulfate, indole-3-acetic acid, p-cresyl sulfate, p-cresyl glucuronide, and hippuric acid were measured by UHPLC-MS at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up in the first 80 patients participating in the CONvective TRAnsport Study (CONTRAST), a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of online HDF versus low-flux HD on all-cause mortality and new cardiovascular events. RKF was inversely related to kynurenic acid ( p < 0.001), indoxyl sulfate ( p = 0.001), indole-3-acetic acid ( p = 0.024), p-cresyl glucuronide ( p = 0.004) and hippuric acid ( p < 0.001) plasma concentrations. Only indoxyl sulfate decreased by 8.0% (-15.3 to 34.6) in patients treated with HDF and increased by 11.9% (-15.4 to 31.9) in HD patients after 6 months of follow-up (HDF vs. HD: p = 0.045). No independent associations were found between PBUT plasma concentrations and either risk of all-cause mortality or new cardiovascular events. In summary, in the current population, RKF is an important determinant of PBUT plasma concentrations in HD patients. The addition of convective transport did not consistently decrease PBUT plasma concentrations and no relation was found between PBUTs and cardiovascular endpoints.