BACKGROUND: Hypotension is caused by a drop in blood volume during ultrafiltration, followed by vasoconstriction and reduced perfusion in some regions of the body. METHODS: We carried out a prospective controlled crossover study on 12 hypotension-prone patients with two different modalities: (A) acetate-free hemodiafiltration with standard ultrafiltration control, and (B) acetate-free hemodiafiltration with monitoring of blood volume and automatic biofeedback with machine-driven adjustments on ultrafiltration and dialysate conductivity. We measured urea Kt/V and equilibrated Kt/V (eKt/V), urea rebound, and urea removal. Hypotensive episodes and interventions were recorded. RESULTS: In group B, fewer hypotensive episodes were recorded (24 out of 72 in group B vs. 59 out of 72 in group A). Saline infusion was required in 57 cases in group A and 15 cases in group B. Urea Kt/V was 1.34 +/- 0.08 in group A and was 1.26 +/- 0.06 in group B; eKt/V was much higher in group B (1.12 +/- 0.05) than in group A (1.03 +/- 008). A significantly higher rebound was observed in group A (14.2 +/- 2.7%) compared with group B (6.4 +/- 2.3%). Discussion. A greater solute sequestration seems to occur during hemodialysis with hypotension. This results in lower eKt/V, enhanced postdialytic rebound, and lower solute removal. Higher efficiency can be observed when dialysis is carried out smoothly and cardiovascular stability is maintained. We conclude that new systems for blood volume monitoring and automatic biofeedback may not only reduce the number of hypotensive episodes during dialysis, but may also contribute to significantly increase the efficacy of the treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Hypotension is caused by a drop in blood volume during ultrafiltration, followed by vasoconstriction and reduced perfusion in some regions of the body. METHODS: We carried out a prospective controlled crossover study on 12 hypotension-prone patients with two different modalities: (A) acetate-free hemodiafiltration with standard ultrafiltration control, and (B) acetate-free hemodiafiltration with monitoring of blood volume and automatic biofeedback with machine-driven adjustments on ultrafiltration and dialysate conductivity. We measured urea Kt/V and equilibrated Kt/V (eKt/V), urea rebound, and urea removal. Hypotensive episodes and interventions were recorded. RESULTS: In group B, fewer hypotensive episodes were recorded (24 out of 72 in group B vs. 59 out of 72 in group A). Saline infusion was required in 57 cases in group A and 15 cases in group B. Urea Kt/V was 1.34 +/- 0.08 in group A and was 1.26 +/- 0.06 in group B; eKt/V was much higher in group B (1.12 +/- 0.05) than in group A (1.03 +/- 008). A significantly higher rebound was observed in group A (14.2 +/- 2.7%) compared with group B (6.4 +/- 2.3%). Discussion. A greater solute sequestration seems to occur during hemodialysis with hypotension. This results in lower eKt/V, enhanced postdialytic rebound, and lower solute removal. Higher efficiency can be observed when dialysis is carried out smoothly and cardiovascular stability is maintained. We conclude that new systems for blood volume monitoring and automatic biofeedback may not only reduce the number of hypotensive episodes during dialysis, but may also contribute to significantly increase the efficacy of the treatment.
Authors: Jason A Chou; Elani Streja; Danh V Nguyen; Connie M Rhee; Yoshitsugu Obi; Jula K Inrig; Alpesh Amin; Csaba P Kovesdy; John J Sim; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Jennifer E Flythe; Hui Xue; Katherine E Lynch; Gary C Curhan; Steven M Brunelli Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Indranil Dasgupta; G Neil Thomas; Joanne Clarke; Alice Sitch; James Martin; Brian Bieber; Manfred Hecking; Angelo Karaboyas; Ronald Pisoni; Friedrich Port; Bruce Robinson; Hugh Rayner Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kelvin C W Leung; Robert R Quinn; Pietro Ravani; Henry Duff; Jennifer M MacRae Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Manfred Hecking; Marlies Antlanger; Wolfgang Winnicki; Thomas Reiter; Johannes Werzowa; Michael Haidinger; Thomas Weichhart; Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg; Peter Josten; Isabella Exner; Katharina Lorenz-Turnheim; Manfred Eigner; Gernot Paul; Renate Klauser-Braun; Walter H Hörl; Gere Sunder-Plassmann; Marcus D Säemann Journal: Trials Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jennifer E Flythe; Matthew J Tugman; Julia H Narendra; Magdalene M Assimon; Quefeng Li; Yueting Wang; Steven M Brunelli; Alan L Hinderliter Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Hyo-Wook Gil; Kitae Bang; So Young Lee; Byoung Geun Han; Jin Kuk Kim; Young Ok Kim; Ho Cheol Song; Young Joo Kwon; Yong-Soo Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 2.153