The Association Between Intradialytic Symptom Clusters and Recovery Time in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis: An Exploratory Analysis.

Background: Individuals receiving hemodialysis often experience concurrent symptoms during treatment and frequently report feeling unwell after dialysis. The degree to which intradialytic symptoms are related, and which specific symptoms may impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain. Objectives: To explore intradialytic symptoms clusters, and the relationship between intradialytic symptom clusters with dialysis treatment recovery time and HRQoL. Design/setting: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study of 118 prevalent patients receiving hemodialysis in two centers in Calgary, Alberta and Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Participants: Adults receiving hemodialysis treatment for at least 3 months, not scheduled for a modality change within 6 weeks of study commencement, who could provide informed consent and were able to complete English questionnaires independently or with assistance. Methods: Participants self-reported the presence (1 = none to 5 = very much) of 10 symptoms during each dialysis treatment, the time it took to recover from each treatment, and weekly Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-Item-Short Form (KDQoL-36) assessments. Principal component analysis identified clusters of intradialytic symptoms. Mixed-effects, ordinal and linear regression examined the association between symptom clusters and recovery time (categorized as 0, >0 to 2, >2 to 6, or >6 hours), and the physical component and mental component scores (PCS and MCS) of the KDQoL-36. Results: One hundred sixteen participants completed 901 intradialytic symptom questionnaires. The most common symptom was lack of energy (56% of treatments). Two intradialytic symptom clusters explained 39% of the total variance of available symptom data. The first cluster included bone or joint pain, muscle cramps, muscle soreness, feeling nervous, and lack of energy. The second cluster included nausea/vomiting, diarrhea and chest pain, and headache. The first cluster (median score: -0.56, 25th to 75th percentile: -1.18 to 0.55) was independently associated with longer recovery time (odds ratio [OR] 1.62 per unit difference in score, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-2.12) and decreased PCS (-0.72 per unit difference in score, 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.15) and MCS scores (-0.82 per unit difference in score, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.16), whereas the second cluster was not (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 0.97-1.58; PCS 0.19, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.83; MCS -0.72, 95% CI: -1.50 to 0.06). Limitations: This was an exploratory analysis of a small data set from 2 centers. Further work is needed to externally validate these findings to confirm intradialytic symptom clusters and the generalizability of our findings. Conclusions: Intradialytic symptoms are correlated. The presence of select intradialytic symptoms may prolong the time it takes for a patient to recover from a dialysis treatment and impair HRQoL.

Contexte: Il arrive fréquemment que les personnes qui reçoivent des traitements d'hémodialyse éprouvent des symptômes concomitants pendant la dialyze et signalent un malaise après le traitement. On en sait toutefois peu sur le degré de corrélation de ce malaise avec les symptômes intradialytiques et sur les symptômes précis qui peuvent altérer la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QVLS). Objectifs: Explorer différents groupes de symptômes intradialytiques et la relation de ceux-ci avec le temps de récupération post-dialyze et la QVLS. Cadre et conception de l'étude: Nous avons procédé à une analyze post-hoc d'une étude de cohorte prospective portant sur 118 patients prévalents recevant une hémodialyse dans deux centers, soit à Calgary (Alberta) et à Hamilton (Ontario) au Canada. Sujets: Des adultes qui recevaient des traitements d'hémodialyse depuis au moins trois mois ­ sans changement de modalité prévu dans les six semaines suivant le début de l'étude ­ qui pouvaient donner leur consentement éclairé et qui étaient en mesure de remplir des questionnaires en anglais de façon autonome ou avec de l'aide. Méthodologie: Pour chaque traitement de dialyze, les participants devaient autoévaluer le degré de présence (de 1 [non présent] à 5 [très présent]) de dix symptômes et le temps nécessaire pour récupérer de chaque traitement, puis remplir des évaluations hebdomadaires à l'aide du questionnaire KDQoL-36. Une analyze des composantes principales a permis de définir des groupes de symptômes intradialytiques. Une régression à effets mixtes, ordinale et linéaire, a servi à examiner l'association entre les groupes de symptômes et le temps de récupération (0 heure; de 0 à 2 heures; de 2 à 6 hures; plus de 6 heures), et les scores des composantes physiques et psychologiques du KDQoL-36. Résultats: Cent seize patients ont rempli un total de 901 questionnaires sur les symptômes intradialytiques. Le symptôme le plus fréquemment déclaré était le manque d'énergie (56 % des traitements). Deux groupes de symptômes intradialytiques ont expliqué 39 % de la variance totale des données disponibles sur les symptômes. Le premier groupe comprenait des douleurs osseuses ou articulaires, des crampes musculaires, des douleurs musculaires, une sensation de nervosité et un manque d'énergie. Le deuxième groupe comprenait des nausées/vomissements, de la diarrhée, des douleurs thoraciques et des maux de tête. Le premier groupe (score médian : ­0,56; du 25e au 75e percentile : ­1, 18 à 0,55) a été indépendamment associé à un temps de récupération plus long (rapport de cotes : 1,62 par unité de différence de score; IC 95 % : 1,23 à 2,12) et à une diminution des scores des composantes physiques (RC : ­0,72; IC 95 % : ­1, 29 à ­0,15) et des scores des composantes psychologiques (RC : ­0,82; IC 95 % : ­1, 48 à ­0,16). Le deuxième groupe n'a pas été associé avec le temps de récupération (RC : 1,24; IC 95 % : 0,97 à 1,58) ni avec le score des composantes physiques (RC : 0,19; IC 95 % : ­0,46 à 0,83) et les scores des composantes psychologiques (RC : ­0,72; IC 95 % : ­1, 50 à 0,06). Limites: Il s'agissait d'une analyze exploratoire d'un petit ensemble de données provenant de deux centers. D'autres études externes sont nécessaires pour valider ces résultats et, ainsi, confirmer nos groupes de symptômes intradialytiques et la généralisabilité de nos résultats. Conclusion: Les symptômes intradialytiques sont corrélés. La présence de certains symptômes intradialytiques peut prolonger le temps de récupération post-dialyze et altérer la qualité de vie des patients.

In-center nocturnal hemodialysis improves health-related quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) is associated with significant symptom burden and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The HRQOL effects of conversion to in-center nocturnal hemodialysis (INHD) remain unclear, especially amongst those with poor HRQOL. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of HD patients converting to INHD. Linear regression models summarized the mean score at baseline and at 12 months for the cohort. To assess whether patients with low baseline HRQOL derive greater benefit, we compared values before and after by levels of baseline score for each domain (below vs equal to or above the median) using a formal interaction test (t test). RESULTS: 36 patients started INHD, 7 withdrew (5 transplanted, 1 death, 1 moved) and 5 declined follow-up. After 12 months the mental component score (MCS) increased by 7.1 points to a value of 51.0 (95% CI + 1.5 to 10.9, p = 0.01). Amongst patients with baseline scores below the median, improvements were seen in: Symptoms/Problems of Kidney Disease (+ 15.2, 95% CI + 5.5 to + 24.9, p = 0.003), Effects of Kidney Disease (+ 16.9, 95% CI + 2.2 to + 31.7, p = 0.026), Physical Component Score (+ 9.4, 95% CI + 1.69 to + 17.2, p = 0.018), MCS (+ 10.7, 95% CI + 2.4 to + 19.1, p = 0.013). Burden of Kidney Disease domain change was not significant (+ 15.1, 95% CI - 2.1 to + 32.3, p = 0.083). DISCUSSION: INHD is a potential intervention for HD patients who struggle with reduced HRQOL, especially for those who struggle with poor mental health. Medical benefits of reduced pill burden and improved phosphate control occur with transition to INHD.

Randomized Crossover Trial of Blood Volume Monitoring-Guided Ultrafiltration Biofeedback to Reduce Intradialytic Hypotensive Episodes with Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is associated with morbidity. The effect of blood volume-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback, which automatically adjusts fluid removal rate on the basis of blood volume parameters, on the reduction of IDH was tested in a randomized crossover trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a 22-week, single blind, randomized crossover trial in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who had >30% of sessions complicated by symptomatic IDH in five centers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Participants underwent a 4-week run-in period to standardize dialysis prescription and dry weight on the basis of clinical examination. Those meeting inclusion criteria were randomized to best clinical practice hemodialysis (control) or best clinical practice plus blood volume-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback (intervention) for 8 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout and subsequent crossover for a second 8-week phase. The primary outcome was rate of symptomatic IDH. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants entered, 32 were randomized, and 26 completed the study. The rate of symptomatic IDH with biofeedback was 0.10/h (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.14) and 0.07/h (95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.10) during control (P=0.29). There were no differences in the rate or proportion of sessions with asymptomatic IDH or symptoms alone. Results remained consistent when adjusted for randomization order and study week. There were no differences between intervention and control in the last study week in interdialytic weight gain (difference [SD], -0.02 [0.8] kg), brain natriuretic peptide (1460 [19,052] ng/L), cardiac troponins (3 [86] ng/L), extracellular water-to-intracellular water ratio (0.05 [0.33]), ultrafiltration rate (1.1 [7.0] ml/kg per hour), and dialysis recovery time (0.43 [19.25] hours). CONCLUSION: The use of blood volume monitoring-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback in patients prone to IDH did not reduce the rate of symptomatic IDH events.

Citrate vs. acetate dialysate on intradialytic heparin dose: A double blind randomized crossover study.

Introduction Citrate containing dialysate has a calcium-binding anticoagulant effect compared to standard acetic acid containing dialysate. We performed a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in maintenance HD patients to determine if citrate dialysate ("citrate") safely allows for a lower cumulative heparin dose ("heparin dose"). Methods Intradialytic heparin was adjusted to the minimum during a 2-week run-in phase. Patients remaining on heparin at the end of the run-in phase were then randomized to two weeks of HD with acetate dialysate ("acetate") followed by two weeks of citrate (sequence 1) or two weeks of citrate followed by two weeks of acetate (sequence 2). We estimated a minimum of 14 patients are required to show a 30% reduction in heparin dose per HD session with citrate compared with acetate. Twenty-five patients entered the run-in phase, 20 were randomized, and 19 completed the study. Findings The mean heparin dose was reduced by 19% (656 units, 95% CI -174 to -1139 units, P = 0.011) in the acetate group, and 30% (1046 units 95% CI -498 to 1594 units, P < 0.001) in the citrate group. There was no difference in the mean heparin dose reduction between the two dialysates (P > 0.05). The intradialytic ionized calcium in the citrate group was lowered by 0.10 mmol/L (95% CI 0.07 to 0.14 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and remained unchanged in the acetate group. Discussion Although citrate is a safe alternative to acetate, it does not result in additional heparin dose reduction.

Ultrafiltration biofeedback guided by blood volume monitoring to reduce intradialytic hypotensive episodes in hemodialysis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluid removal during dialysis, also known as ultrafiltration (UF), leads to intradialytic hypotension (IDH) in a significant number of patients treated with hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. At present, there are no accepted standards of practice for the prevention or treatment of IDH. Relative blood volume monitoring (BVM) is based on the concept that the hematocrit increases with UF, relative to the patient's baseline hematocrit. The use of BVM biofeedback, whereby the HD machine automatically adjusts the rate of UF based on the relative blood volume, has been proposed for the prevention of IDH. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 22-week randomized crossover trial. Participants undergo a 4-week run-in phase to standardize medications and dialysis prescriptions. Subsequently, participants are randomized to standard HD or to BVM biofeedback for a period of 8 weeks followed by a 2-week washout phase before crossing over. The dialysis prescription remains identical for both arms. The primary outcome is the frequency of symptomatic IDH as defined by an abrupt drop in the systolic blood pressure of ≥ 20 mm Hg accompanied by headache, dizziness, loss of consciousness, thirst, dyspnea, angina, muscle cramps or vomiting. Secondary outcomes include the number of symptomatic IDH episodes and any reduction in IDH episodes, nursing interventions, dialysis adequacy, total body water, extra- and intracellular fluid volumes, brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac troponin levels, blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, patient symptoms and quality of life. DISCUSSION: Our study will determine the impact of using BVM biofeedback to prevent IDH and other serious adverse events in susceptible patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01988181 (6 November 2013).

Contrast-associated AKI and use of cardiovascular medications after acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: AKI after coronary angiography is associated with poor long-term outcomes. The relationship between contrast-associated AKI and subsequent use of prognosis-modifying cardiovascular medications is unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A cohort study of 5911 participants 66 years of age or older with acute coronary syndrome who received a coronary angiogram in Alberta, Canada was performed between November 1, 2002, and November 30, 2008. AKI was identified according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes AKI criteria. RESULTS: In multivariable logistic regression models, compared with participants without AKI, those with stages 1 and 2-3 AKI had lower odds of subsequent use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker within 120 days of hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.80 and odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.48, respectively). Subsequent statin and ß-blockers use within 120 days of hospital discharge was significantly lower among those with stages 2-3 AKI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.64 and odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.66, respectively). These associations were consistently seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, heart failure, low baseline eGFR, and albuminuria; 952 participants died during subsequent follow-up after hospital discharge (mean=3.1 years). The use of each class of cardiovascular medication was associated with lower mortality, including among those who had experienced AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to optimize the use of cardiac medications in people with AKI after coronary angiography might improve care.

Chronic kidney disease following acute kidney injury-risk and outcomes.

In the past two decades, a substantial increase in the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and kidney injury requiring dialysis has occurred in North America. This increase has coincided with an increase in the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which has exceeded that expected based upon the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In order to better understand the association between these conditions, there has been a proliferation of studies that have examined the risks of incident and progressive CKD following AKI. Animal studies have shown that failed differentiation of epithelial cells following renal ischaemia-reperfusion injury might lead to tubulointerstitial fibrosis, supporting a biological mechanism linking AKI and CKD. Strong and consistent associations between AKI and incident CKD, progression of CKD and incident ESRD have also been shown in epidemiological studies. In this Review, we summarize the wealth of available data on the relationship between AKI and CKD, and discuss the implications of these findings for the long-term clinical management of patients following AKI. We also identify areas of active investigation and future directions for research.