Variaciones de la conductividad y cambios en el sodio plasmático durante hemodiálisis relacionado con el cambio de monitor / Conductivity variations and changes in serum sodium concentration during dialysis related to monitor switching

Introducción El gradiente de sodio durante las sesiones es uno de los factores clave en el balance de este ion en los pacientes en hemodiálisis; sin embargo, hasta la aparición de los nuevos monitores con módulos de sodio, las diferencias entre el sodio prescrito y el medido han sido poco estudiadas. El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar el impacto del cambio del monitor 5008 Cordiax al nuevo monitor 6008 Cordiax sobre los resultados de la conductividad real medida, del sodio plasmático inicial y final. Material y métodos Se incluyeron 106 pacientes en hemodiálisis. Cada paciente recibió dos sesiones de diálisis en las que solo se varió el monitor. Las variables recogidas fueron: el concentrado, sodio y bicarbonato prescritos, conductividad real, sodio plasmático inicial y final medidos por dialisancia iónica y se calculó el cambio de la concentración de sodio plasmático durante el tratamiento o delta de sodio (ΔPNa). Resultados El cambio de monitor de diálisis mostró pequeñas diferencias, aunque significativas, en el sodio plasmático inicial (138,14 mmol/L con 5008 vs. 138,81 mmol/L con 6008) y final (139,58 mmol/L vs. 140,97 mmol/L), así como en la conductividad real obtenida (13,97 vs. 14,10 mS/cm). El ΔPNa también aumento significativamente. Conclusión El cambio de monitor 5008 a 6008 se asocia a un aumento en la conductividad, un sodio plasmático más elevado y un incremento en el ΔPNa. El conocer y confirmar este cambio permitirá individualizar la prescripción de sodio, evitar posibles efectos indeseables y podría ser el estudio preliminar para explorar el nuevo biosensor de control de sodio incorporado en la nueva generación de monitores (AU)

Introduction The sodium gradient during hemodialysis sessions is one of the key factors in sodium balance in patients with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease; however, until the appearance of the new monitors with sodium modules, the differences between prescribed and measured sodium have been understudied. The present study aimed to compare the impact on the measured conductivity and the initial and final plasma sodium after changing the 5008 Cordiax to the new 6008 Cordiax monitor. Material and methods 106 patients on hemodialysis were included. Each patient underwent 2 dialysis sessions in which only the monitor was varied. The variables collected were dialysate, sodium and bicarbonate prescribed, real conductivity, initial and final plasma sodium measured, and the calculated sodium gradient (ΔPNa). Results The change of dialysis monitor showed small but statistically significant differences in the initial (138.14 mmol/L with 5008 vs. 138.81 mmol/L with 6008) and final plasma sodium (139.58 mmol/L vs. 140.97 mmol/L), as well as in the actual conductivity obtained (13.97 vs. 14.1 mS/cm). The ΔPNa also increased significantly. Conclusión The change from 5008 to 6008 monitor is associated with increased conductivity, leading the patient to end the sessions with higher plasma sodium and ΔPNa. Knowing and confirming this change will allow us to individualize the sodium prescription and avoid possible undesirable effects. It could be the preliminary study to explore the new sodium biosensor incorporated into the new generation of monitors (AU)

Practical implementation and clinical benefits of the new automated dialysate sodium control biosensor.

Background: A key feature of dialysis treatment is the prescription of dialysate sodium (Na). This study aimed to describe the practical implementation of a new automated dialysate Na control biosensor and to assess its tolerance and the beneficial clinical effects of isonatraemic dialysis. Methods: A prospective study was carried out in 86 patients who, along with their usual parameters, received the following five consecutive phases of treatment for 3 weeks each: phase 0: baseline 5008 machine; phases 1 and 2: 6008 machine without activation of the Na control biosensor and the same fixed individualized Na dialysate prescription or adjusted to obtain similar conductivity to phase 0; phases 3 and 4: activated Na control to isonatraemic dialysis (Na dialysate margins 135-141 or 134-142 mmol/L). Results: When the Na control was activated, the few episodes of cramps or hypotension disappeared when the lower dialysate Na margin was increased by 1 or 2 mmol/L. The activated Na control module showed significant differences compared with baseline and the non-activated Na module in final serum Na values, diffusive Na balance, and changes in pre- to postdialysis plasma Na values. The mean predialysis systolic blood pressure value was significantly lower in phase 4 than in phase 1. There were no significant differences in total Na balance in the four 6008 phases evaluated. Conclusions: The implementation of the automated dialysate Na control module is a useful new tool, which reduced the diffusive load of Na with good tolerance. The module had the advantages of reducing thirst, interdialytic weight gain and intradialytic plasma Na changes.

Conductivity variations and changes in serum sodium concentration during dialysis related to monitor switching.

INTRODUCTION: The sodium gradient during hemodialysis sessions is one of the key factors in sodium balance in patients with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease; however, until the appearance of the new monitors with sodium modules, the differences between prescribed and measured sodium have been understudied. The present study aimed to compare the impact on the measured conductivity and the initial and final plasma sodium after changing the 5008 Cordiax to the new 6008 Cordiax monitor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 106 patients on hemodialysis were included. Each patient underwent 2 dialysis sessions in which only the monitor was varied. The variables collected were dialysate, sodium and bicarbonate prescribed, real conductivity, initial and final plasma sodium measured, and the calculated sodium gradient (ΔPNa). RESULTS: The change of dialysis monitor showed small but statistically significant differences in the initial (138.14mmol/L with 5008 vs. 138.81mmol/L with 6008) and final plasma sodium (139.58mmol/L vs. 140.97mmol/L), as well as in the actual conductivity obtained (13.97 vs. 14.1mS/cm). The ΔPNa also increased significantly. CONCLUSION: The change from 5008 to 6008 monitor is associated with increased conductivity, leading the patient to end the sessions with higher plasma sodium and ΔPNa. Knowing and confirming this change will allow us to individualize the sodium prescription and avoid possible undesirable effects. It could be the preliminary study to explore the new sodium biosensor incorporated into the new generation of monitors.

Incidence of severe breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated kidney transplant and haemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Given the increased COVID-19 observed in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and haemodialysis patients, several studies have tried to establish the efficacy of mRNA vaccines in these populations by evaluating their humoral and cellular responses. However, there is currently no information on clinical protection (deaths and hospitalizations), a gap that this study aims to fill. METHODS: Observational prospective study involving 1,336 KTRs and haemodialysis patients from three dialysis units affiliated to Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain, vaccinated with two doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. The outcomes measured were SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed by a positive RT-PCR fourteen days after the second vaccine dose, hospital admissions derived from infection, and a severe COVID-19 composite outcome, defined as either ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: Six per cent (18/302) of patients on haemodialysis were infected, of whom four required hospital admission (1.3%), only one (0.3%) had severe COVID-19, and none of them died. In contrast, 4.3% (44/1034) of KTRs were infected, and presented more hospital admissions (26 patients, 2.5%), severe COVID-19 (11 patients, 1.1%) or death (4 patients, 0.4%). KTRs had a significantly higher risk of hospital admission than HD patients, and this risk increased with age and male sex (HR 3.37 and 4.74, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the need for booster doses in KTRs. In contrast, the haemodialysis population appears to have an adequate clinical response to vaccination, at least up to four months from its administration.

Impact of insulin therapy before donation on graft outcomes in pancreas transplantation: An analysis of the OPTN/UNOS database.

AIMS: Information on the impact of insulin therapy before pancreas donation on pancreas outcomes is scarce. We aim to explore the influence of insulin therapy before donation on recipient and pancreas graft survival. METHODS: Registry study including 12,841 pancreas recipients from the OPTN/UNOS registry performed between 2000 and 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for covariate imbalance between recipients from a donor with and without insulin requirements. RESULTS: A total of 7765 (60%) patients received a pancreas from a donor with insulin before donation (IBD). Pancreas graft survival (death-censored) was similar between recipients from IBD and non-IBD donors at 1, 5 and 10 years (89% vs 89%, 78% vs 79 and 69% vs 70%, respectively, P = 0.35). Recipients from IBD donors presented a similar 90-days pancreas graft survival. After IPTW weighting, IBD donors were neither associated with any post-transplant surgical complication (HR 1.11 [95% CI 0.98-1.24], P = 0.06), nor with risk for recipient death (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.04], P = 0.26), nor pancreas graft failure (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98-1.16], P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin therapy before donation in accepted pancreas donors was not associated, per se, with an impaired pancreas graft and patient survival.

Mucormycosis associated with COVID-19 in two kidney transplant patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predisposes patients to bacterial and fungal superinfections due to the impairment of the immunological system. Among the associated opportunistic fungal infections, mucormycosis is one of the least frequent but with the highest mortality. We describe two cases of mucormycosis in two kidney transplant recipients, while they were hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, with rhinosinusal and musculoskeletal involvement, respectively.

Acute renal replacement therapy in critically ill octogenarian or older patients: prognostic factors and renal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The number of octogenarians or older patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been growing over the past several years. The aim of this study is to assess factors associated with acute renal replacement therapy (ARRT) requirement in these patients and the impact of this therapy on 90-day mortality. We also aimed to identify prognostic factors associated with mortality risk in the group of patients that required ARRT. METHODS: Retrospective study of octogenarian or older patients admitted to the ICU at Hospital Clínic de Barcelona from June 2007 to April 2019. Patients on chronic dialysis treatment or with a kidney transplant, and patients with limitation of therapeutic support or admitted for less than 48 h were excluded. RESULTS: 217 patients were included in the study, of whom 36.4% required ARRT. Use of vasoactive drugs (VAD) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on admission were higher in ARRT patients (P = 0.009 and < 0.001, respectively). Basal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the ARRT cohort (P < 0.001). Hospital and ICU length of stay were longer in the ARRT cohort (P < 0.001). Ninety-day mortality was 58.2% in the ARRT cohort compared to 55.8% in the non-ARRT control cohort (P = NS). In the survival analysis, only female sex, sepsis and non-renal SOFA ≥ 6.5 were significantly associated with mortality (P = 0.002, 0.028 and 0.009, respectively) in the ARRT cohort. CONCLUSION: Mortality was not significantly increased in the octogenarian or older population that required and received ARRT compared to control patients who did not require it. Severity scores like SOFA could help in the process of decision making about initiation of ARRT in this population.