Jennifer E Flythe1,2, Matthew J Tugman3, Julia H Narendra3, Magdalene M Assimon3, Quefeng Li4, Yueting Wang4, Steven M Brunelli5, Alan L Hinderliter6. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina (UNC) Kidney Center, UNC School of Medicine, 7024 Burnett-Womack CB #7155, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7155, USA. jflythe@med.unc.edu. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. jflythe@med.unc.edu. 3. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina (UNC) Kidney Center, UNC School of Medicine, 7024 Burnett-Womack CB #7155, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7155, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. DaVita Clinical Research, Needham, MA, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and longer dialysis recovery times. The effect of ultrafiltration (UF) profiling, independent of concomitant sodium profiling, on markers of intradialytic hemodynamics and other outcomes has been inadequately studied. METHODS: Four-phase, blinded crossover trial. Participants (UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg) were assigned in random order to receive hemodialysis with UF profiling (constantly declining UF rate, intervention) vs. hemodialysis with conventional UF (control). Each 3-week 9-treatment period was followed by a 1-week 3-treatment washout period. Participants crossed into each study arm twice (2 phases/arm); 18 treatments per treatment type. The primary outcomes were intradialytic hypotension, pre- to post-dialysis troponin T change, and change from baseline in left ventricular global longitudinal strain. Other outcomes included intradialytic symptoms and blood volume measured-plasma refill (post-dialysis volume status measure), among others. Each participant served as their own control. RESULTS: On average, the 34 randomized patients (mean age 56 years, 24% female, mean dialysis vintage 6.3 years) had UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg in 56% of treatments during the screening period. All but 2 patients completed the 15-week study (prolonged hospitalization, kidney transplant). There was no significant difference in intradialytic hypotension, troponin T change, or left ventricular strain between hemodialysis with UF profiling and conventional UF. With UF profiling, participants had significantly lower odds of light-headedness and plasma refill compared to hemodialysis with conventional UF. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafiltration (UF) profiling did not reduce the odds of treatment-related cardiac stress but did reduce the odds of light-headedness and post-dialysis hypervolemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03301740 (registered October 4, 2017).
BACKGROUND: More rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and longer dialysis recovery times. The effect of ultrafiltration (UF) profiling, independent of concomitant sodium profiling, on markers of intradialytic hemodynamics and other outcomes has been inadequately studied. METHODS: Four-phase, blinded crossover trial. Participants (UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg) were assigned in random order to receive hemodialysis with UF profiling (constantly declining UF rate, intervention) vs. hemodialysis with conventional UF (control). Each 3-week 9-treatment period was followed by a 1-week 3-treatment washout period. Participants crossed into each study arm twice (2 phases/arm); 18 treatments per treatment type. The primary outcomes were intradialytic hypotension, pre- to post-dialysis troponin T change, and change from baseline in left ventricular global longitudinal strain. Other outcomes included intradialytic symptoms and blood volume measured-plasma refill (post-dialysis volume status measure), among others. Each participant served as their own control. RESULTS: On average, the 34 randomized patients (mean age 56 years, 24% female, mean dialysis vintage 6.3 years) had UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg in 56% of treatments during the screening period. All but 2 patients completed the 15-week study (prolonged hospitalization, kidney transplant). There was no significant difference in intradialytic hypotension, troponin T change, or left ventricular strain between hemodialysis with UF profiling and conventional UF. With UF profiling, participants had significantly lower odds of light-headedness and plasma refill compared to hemodialysis with conventional UF. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafiltration (UF) profiling did not reduce the odds of treatment-related cardiac stress but did reduce the odds of light-headedness and post-dialysis hypervolemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03301740 (registered October 4, 2017).
Authors: C Basile; R Giordano; L Vernaglione; A Montanaro; P De Maio ; F De Padova ; A L Marangi; L Di Marco; D Santese; A Semeraro; V A Ligorio Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Eun Young Seong; Yuanchao Zheng; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Maria E Montez-Rath; Tara I Chang Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Rajiv Saran; Bruce Robinson; Kevin C Abbott; Lawrence Y C Agodoa; Jennifer Bragg-Gresham; Rajesh Balkrishnan; Nicole Bhave; Xue Dietrich; Zhechen Ding; Paul W Eggers; Abduzhappar Gaipov; Daniel Gillen; Debbie Gipson; Haoyu Gu; Paula Guro; Diana Haggerty; Yun Han; Kevin He; William Herman; Michael Heung; Richard A Hirth; Jui-Ting Hsiung; David Hutton; Aya Inoue; Steven J Jacobsen; Yan Jin; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Alissa Kapke; Carola-Ellen Kleine; Csaba P Kovesdy; William Krueter; Vivian Kurtz; Yiting Li; Sai Liu; Maria V Marroquin; Keith McCullough; Miklos Z Molnar; Zubin Modi; Maria Montez-Rath; Hamid Moradi; Hal Morgenstern; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Brahmajee Nallamothu; Danh V Nguyen; Keith C Norris; Ann M O'Hare; Yoshitsugu Obi; Christina Park; Jeffrey Pearson; Ronald Pisoni; Praveen K Potukuchi; Kaitlyn Repeck; Connie M Rhee; Douglas E Schaubel; Jillian Schrager; David T Selewski; Ruth Shamraj; Sally F Shaw; Jiaxiao M Shi; Monica Shieu; John J Sim; Melissa Soohoo; Diane Steffick; Elani Streja; Keiichi Sumida; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Anca Tilea; Megan Turf; Dongyu Wang; Wenjing Weng; Kenneth J Woodside; April Wyncott; Jie Xiang; Xin Xin; Maggie Yin; Amy S You; Xiaosong Zhang; Hui Zhou; Vahakn Shahinian Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: R Saran; J L Bragg-Gresham; N W Levin; Z J Twardowski; V Wizemann; A Saito; N Kimata; B W Gillespie; C Combe; J Bommer; T Akiba; D L Mapes; E W Young; F K Port Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.612
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