Pre-dialysis levels of inflammation and endotoxin in people receiving hemodialysis are not associated with blood pressure variability.

There are multiple risk factors for inflammation in dialysis. One potential cause is the presence of circulating levels of Gram-negative bacteria-derived endotoxin which is a strong inducer of inflammation. Gut-associated endotoxin may enter the circulation via a defective blood-gut barrier during episodes of hypotension or reduced perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 165 patients receiving outpatient-based hemodialysis in a facility (FHD) or at home (HHD), were studied. Levels of inflammation were quantified by developing an inflammatory score derived from the measurement of pro-inflammatory cytokines, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6). Intradialytic blood pressure (BP) variability and hypotension events were recorded. This included the final session of dialysis, at the commencement of which the blood samples were drawn, as well as the five preceding sessions. RESULTS: The median inflammatory score was 2 (range 0 - 3), and 30% of patients had an inflammatory score of three suggesting significant levels of inflammation. Only 8.5% had an inflammatory score of 0. Endotoxin was measured in all participants and was only positive in N = 3. The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 134 ± 20 mmHg and the BP variability was 11.7 ± 3.5. In a multivariable ordinal regression model, a higher inflammatory score was significantly associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.95 - 0.99, p = 0.03), higher ultrafiltration volume (OR 1.62, CI 1.04 - 2.54, p = 0.03) and lower body mass index (OR 0.9, CI 0.86 - 0.96, p = 0.01). There was no association between inflammatory score and dialysis modality, access type, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), BP variability, or endotoxin. Endotoxin was detected in only 3 of 165 patients and was not associated with inflammation. CONCLUSION: Pre-dialysis levels of inflammation are prevalent in the hemodialysis population after the long break but are not related to intradialytic BP variability or hypotension in the preceding 2 weeks. However, endotoxemia is uncommon and unlikely to be a significant driver of inflammation.

Establishing a stable platform for the measurement of blood endotoxin levels in the dialysis population.

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative lipopolysaccharides are potent inducers of inflammation and have been shown to be present in patients with end-stage kidney disease. There are a variety of different manufacturers and assay types to quantify endotoxin levels; however, there is no standard methodology to demonstrate its presence in plasma. METHODS: A control group consisting of haemodialysis and non-kidney disease was selected. Five sets of experiments were conducted to try and ascertain the best platform for plasma endotoxin testing. This included: testing of blank tubes; the effects of freezing, thawing and storage on recovery; the effect of different buffers; use of an endpoint assay and comparison of turbidimetric vs. chromogenic kinetic assays. RESULTS: No endotoxin was detected in the blood collection tubes. Freezing and thawing per se did not affect spike recovery rates. However, the sequencing of sample dilution relative to freezing had a significant effect on endotoxin recovery. Buffers increased spike recovery at all levels of dilution. No endotoxin was demonstrated with either the turbidimetric or chromogenic kinetic assay at two different dilutions in the haemodialysis controls. The endpoint assay at a 1:5 dilution did not achieve a valid standard curve. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study suggest that, when testing plasma samples, either a turbidimetric or chromogenic assay may be used and should be diluted with appropriate buffers to achieve optimal recovery. Studies looking to quantify the presence of plasma endotoxin need to internally validate their assays and specify their validation findings in their results.