Toward acid- and heparin-free dialysis: the regional anticoagulation approach.

Background: In chronic intermittent hemodialysis, heparin is the standard anticoagulant as is the use of acid-containing dialysate. Regional anticoagulation (RA) with a calcium-free, citrate-containing dialysate has been developed. We compared RA using a calcium-free, citrate-free dialysate, routinely used in our center, versus systemic heparinization. Methods: In a retrospective, observational, single-center, crossover study, we examined 15 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis who were at high risk of bleeding and temporarily unable to use heparin. These patients received temporary treatment with RA involving calcium-free and citrate-free dialysate. We compared the dialysis session success rates during two distinct periods: standard heparinization and RA procedure with a calcium-free and citrate-free dialysate. Results: In our study of 15 patients on chronic hemodialysis which compared 30 RA sessions versus 28 heparin-based anticoagulation session, we observed a 100% success rate with a median session duration of 240 min in both RA and heparin groups. No early extracorporeal circulation (ECC) loss was reported. However, we noted significant differences in the post-dialysis ECC thrombosis scores, with higher Global Thrombosis Index (GTI) and higher membrane coagulation scores in the RA group (P < .007 and P < .02, respectively). No hypocalcaemia or hypercalcemia symptoms occurred. Median post-filter ionized calcium levels were 0.32 (0.29-0.39) mmol/L at 30 min and median patient ionized calcium levels was 1.19 (1.135-1.28) mmol/L at 60 min. No significant difference in per-dialysis arterial blood pressure was observed between groups. Conclusion: Our study evaluated the RA approach using a calcium-free, citrate-free acetate dialysate in a chronic hemodialysis center and found it effective. Although an acid-free dialysate was not used in this study, our findings suggest it could be the next frontier in the evolution of advanced dialysis techniques.

Presence of specific SARS-COV2 antibodies in hemodialysis patients and their caregivers after the first wave of COVID-19.

Hemodialysis (HD) patients are at risk for severe COVID-19 and cannot comply with social distancing. SARS-COV2 seroprevalence in French patients and caregivers after the first wave of COVID-19 is unknown. SeroCOVIDial is a prospective study conducted between June and December 2020. SARS-COV2 seroprevalence was evaluated by a rapid serological test (BIOSYNEX) in HD patients and caregivers, and the presence or not of anti-SARS-COV2 neutralizing or non-neutralizing antibodies in patients was also determined by ELISA and seroneutralization. In June 2020, 451 HD patients and 238 caregivers were included. Overall SARS-COV2 seroprevalence was 8.4% (patients) and 6.7% (caregivers), and was 87.1% (patients) and 90.0% (caregivers) in participants with a previously documented SARS-COV2 infection. Overall seroprevalence reached 13.8% (patients) and 12.6% (caregivers) following the second epidemic wave. During the follow-up, 38 (8.4%) patients died (9 of COVID-19). Among the 44 (10.6%) patients who became infected, only two were seropositive at M0. The levels of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies decreased over time in patients and caregivers. The BIOSYNEX test showed 82.9% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity. Prevalence of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies was low in HD patients and caregivers after the first epidemic wave but rose after the second wave. A rapid serological test showed good performances and could be useful for future monitoring of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies.

Risk factors for severity of COVID-19 in chronic dialysis patients from a multicentre French cohort.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease, related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Few data are available in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients at 11 dialysis centres in two distinct districts of France to examine the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in this population, and to determine risk factors of disease severity (defined as a composite outcome including intensive care unit admission or death) and mortality. RESULTS: Among the 2336 patients enrolled, 5.5% had confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Of the 122 patients with a follow-up superior to 28 days, 37% reached the composite outcome and 28% died. Multivariate analysis showed that oxygen therapy on diagnosis and a decrease in lymphocyte count were independent risk factors associated with disease severity and with mortality. Chronic use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18% of patients) was associated with a protective effect on mortality. Treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine (AZT/HCQ) (46% of patients) were not associated with the composite outcome and with death in univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is a severe disease with poor prognosis in patients with ESRD. Usual treatment with ARBs seems to be protective of critical evolution and mortality. There is no evidence of clinical benefit with the combination of AZT/HCQ.

Triage of Patients Suspected of COVID-19 in Chronic Hemodialysis: Eosinophil Count Differentiates Low and High Suspicion of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Daily management to shield chronic dialysis patients from SARS-CoV-2 contamination makes patient care cumbersome. There are no screening methods to date and a molecular biology platform is essential to perform RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2; however, accessibility remains poor. Our goal was to assess whether the tools routinely used to monitor our hemodialysis patients could represent reliable and quickly accessible diagnostic indicators to improve the management of our hemodialysis patients in this pandemic environment. METHODS: In this prospective observational diagnostic study, we recruited patients from La Conception hospital. Patients were eligible for inclusion if suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection when arriving at our center for a dialysis session between March 12th and April 24th 2020. They were included if both RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 and cell blood count on the day that infection was suspected were available. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: 37 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 16 (43.2%) were COVID-19 positive. For the day of suspected COVID-19, total leukocytes were significantly lower in the COVID-19 positive group (4.1 vs. 7.4 G/L, p = 0.0072) and were characterized by lower neutrophils (2.7 vs. 5.1 G/L, p = 0.021) and eosinophils (0.01 vs. 0.15 G/L, p = 0.0003). Eosinophil count below 0.045 G/L identified SARS-CoV-2 infection with AUC of 0.9 [95% CI 0.81-1] (p < 0.0001), sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 86%, a positive predictive value of 82%, a negative predictive value of 86% and a likelihood ratio of 6.04. CONCLUSIONS: Eosinophil count enables rapid routine screening of symptomatic chronic hemodialysis patients suspected of being COVID-19 within a range of low or high probability.