Effect of Low-Sodium versus Conventional Sodium Dialysate on Left Ventricular Mass in Home and Self-Care Satellite Facility Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload in patients undergoing hemodialysis contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. There is a global trend to lower dialysate sodium with the goal of reducing fluid overload. METHODS: To investigate whether lower dialysate sodium during hemodialysis reduces left ventricular mass, we conducted a randomized trial in which patients received either low-sodium dialysate (135 mM) or conventional dialysate (140 mM) for 12 months. We included participants who were aged >18 years old, had a predialysis serum sodium ≥135 mM, and were receiving hemodialysis at home or a self-care satellite facility. Exclusion criteria included hemodialysis frequency >3.5 times per week and use of sodium profiling or hemodiafiltration. The main outcome was left ventricular mass index by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: The 99 participants had a median age of 51 years old; 67 were men, 31 had diabetes mellitus, and 59 had left ventricular hypertrophy. Over 12 months of follow-up, relative to control, a dialysate sodium concentration of 135 mmol/L did not change the left ventricular mass index, despite significant reductions at 6 and 12 months in interdialytic weight gain, in extracellular fluid volume, and in plasma B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (ratio of intervention to control). The intervention increased intradialytic hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1 to 49.8 at 6 months and OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.5 to 28.8 at 12 months). Five participants in the intervention arm could not complete the trial because of hypotension. We found no effect on health-related quality of life measures, perceived thirst or xerostomia, or dietary sodium intake. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysate sodium of 135 mmol/L did not reduce left ventricular mass relative to control, despite improving fluid status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000975998.

Effect of antimicrobial locks for tunneled hemodialysis catheters on bloodstream infection and bacterial resistance: a quality improvement report.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-restricted antimicrobial lock (AML) use reduces catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CA-BSI) in clinical trial settings, but may not be as effective in clinical settings and may increase bacterial resistance. DESIGN: Quality improvement report analyzed using a cross-sectional time series (unbalanced panel) design. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The study cohort comprised all prevalent adults treated with hemodialysis through a tunneled catheter for any, but not necessarily all, of the time from January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006, in Manukau City, New Zealand (135,346 catheter-days, 404 tunneled catheters, 320 patients). QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: Catheter-restricted AMLs (heparin plus gentamicin) for all tunneled catheters from July 1, 2004. MEASURES: Repeated observations of CA-BSI, hospitalization, tunneled catheter removal, and death from CA-BSI analyzed by using generalized estimating equations with a single level of clustering for each tunneled catheter and patterns of bacterial resistance analyzed by using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: AML use was associated with reductions in rates of CA-BSI and hospitalization for CA-BSI by 52% and 69% for patients with tunneled catheters locked continuously with AMLs since their insertion compared with those with tunneled catheters that were not, respectively. AML exposure also was associated with a trend to increased gentamicin resistance amongst coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates, a pattern similar to that observed for BSIs in our general hemodialysis population in which tunneled catheters were not the source of BSI, but different from that in the general non-end-stage renal disease population in the region. LIMITATIONS: This is an uncontrolled observational study and cannot prove causality. The follow-up period of 18 months is longer than for other studies, but still too short to definitely answer whether AML use drives bacterial resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A change to use of AMLs may improve clinical outcomes; however, additional study of associated bacterial resistance is needed before AML use becomes standard care.