Defining myocardial infarction in trials of people receiving hemodialysis: consensus report from the SONG-HD MI Expert Working group.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in patients receiving hemodialysis. Currently, there is no standardized definition of myocardial infarction (MI) for patients receiving hemodialysis. Through an international consensus process MI was established as the core CVD measure for this population in clinical trials. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology Group-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) initiative convened a multidisciplinary, international working group to address the definition of MI in this population. On the basis of current evidence, the working group recommends using the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction with specific caveats with regard to the interpretation of "ischemic symptoms" and performing a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram to facilitate interpretation of acute changes on subsequent tracings. The working group does not recommend obtaining baseline cardiac troponin values, though does recommend obtaining serial cardiac biomarkers in settings where ischemia is suspected. The application of an evidence-based uniform definition should increase the reliability and accuracy of trial results.

Epidemiology of cardiovascular death in kidney failure: An Australian and New Zealand cohort study using data linkage.

AIM: Cardiovascular mortality risk evolves over the lifespan of kidney failure (KF), as patients develop comorbid disease and transition between treatment modalities. Absolute cardiovascular death rates would help inform clinical practice and health-care provision, but are not well understood across a continuum of dialysis and transplant states. We aimed to characterize cardiovascular death across the natural history of KF using a lifespan approach. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of incident patients commencing kidney replacement therapy in Australia and New Zealand. Cardiovascular deaths were identified using data linkage to national death registers. We estimated the probability of death and kidney transplant using multi-state models, and calculated rates of graft failure and cardiovascular death across demographic factors and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 60 823 incident patients followed over 381 874 person-years, 25% (8492) of deaths were from cardiovascular disease. At 15 years from treatment initiation, patients had a 15.2% probability of cardiovascular death without being transplanted, but only 2.3% probability of cardiovascular death post-transplant. Females had a 3% lower probability of cardiovascular death at 15 years (15.3% vs. 18.6%) but 4% higher probability of non-cardiovascular death (54.5% vs. 50.8%). Within the first year of dialysis, cardiovascular mortality peaked in the second month and showed little improvement across treatment era. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements over time, cardiovascular death remains common in KF, particularly among the dialysis population and in the first few months of treatment. Multi-state models can provide absolute measures of cardiovascular mortality across both dialysis and transplant states.

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo- and peritoneal dialysis.

AIM: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient-centred management. METHODS: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG-Haemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal dialysis projects. RESULTS: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of "crashes" - a sudden drop in blood pressure - forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self-management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). CONCLUSION: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient-centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom-causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Supporting patients to be involved in decisions about their health and care: Development of a best practice health literacy App for Australian adults living with Chronic Kidney Disease.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Inadequate health literacy is common in those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), especially among culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Patient information for people with CKD, including those with kidney failure requiring dialysis, is often written beyond their literacy level, and many CKD-related apps are not accurate or evidence based. These represent important barriers to health care decision-making and equity in access to health care. METHODS: We developed a cross-platform application (the "SUCCESS app") to support Australian adults with kidney failure requiring dialysis to actively participate in self-management and decision-making. App content was informed by health literacy theory which recognises the importance of reducing the complexity of health information as well as equipping consumers with the skills necessary to access, understand and act on this information. The development team comprised members of diverse backgrounds and expertise, including nursing, allied health, psychology, epidemiology, nephrology and IT, as well as consumer representatives. RESULTS: Content areas included diet, fluids, medicine, physical activity, emotional well-being and supportive care, chosen as they represent important decision points in the CKD trajectory. To support functional health literacy, a four-step process to simplify written content was used including calculating readability statistics, applying the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, supplementing written information with video and audio content, and incorporating micro-learning and interactive quizzes. To develop communicative and critical health literacy skills, question prompt lists and evidence-based volitional help sheets were included in each module to support question-asking and behaviour change. We also developed animated skills training related to communication, shared decision-making and critical appraisal of health information. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first health literacy informed app developed to promote active patient participation in CKD management and decision-making. Ongoing evaluation of the SUCCESS app through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data will provide valuable insights into the feasibility of implementing the app with dialysis patients, and the impact of the intervention of psychosocial and clinical outcomes. SO WHAT?: Digital health solutions have been found to improve self-management for chronic conditions, and could optimise the use of health care services and patient outcomes.

Establishing Core Cardiovascular Outcome Measures for Trials in Hemodialysis: Report of an International Consensus Workshop.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) affects more than two-thirds of patients receiving hemodialysis and is the leading cause of death in this population, yet CVD outcomes are infrequently and inconsistently reported in trials in patients receiving hemodialysis. As part of the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Haemodialysis (SONG-HD) initiative, we convened a consensus workshop to discuss the potential use of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death as core outcome measures for CVD for use in all trials in people receiving hemodialysis. Eight patients or caregivers and 46 health professionals from 15 countries discussed selection and implementation of the proposed core outcome measures. Five main themes were identified: capturing specific relevance to the hemodialysis population (acknowledging prevalence, risk, severity, unique symptomology, and pathophysiology), the dilemmas in using composite outcomes, addressing challenges in outcome definitions (establishing a common definition and addressing uncertainty in the utility of biomarkers in hemodialysis), selecting a meaningful metric for decision making (to facilitate comparison across trials), and enabling and incentivizing implementation (by ensuring that cardiologists are involved in the development and integration of the outcome measure into registries, trial design, and reporting guidelines). Based on these themes, participants supported the use of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death as core outcome measures of CVD to be reported in all hemodialysis trials.

Identifying critically important cardiovascular outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials. METHODS: In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7-9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best-worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best-worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome ('valve replacement') was rated as critically important (Likert 7-9) by all participants; 'sudden cardiac death', 'heart attack', 'stroke' and 'heart failure' were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.5), 5.9 (4.6-7.2), 5.3 (4.0-6.6) and 4.9 (3.6-6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: 'clinical equipoise and potential for intervention', 'specific or attributable to HD', 'severity or impact on the quality of life', 'strengthen knowledge and education', and 'inextricably linked burden and risk'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials.

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes. METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD.

Identifying dimensions of fatigue in haemodialysis important to patients, caregivers and health professionals: An international survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue used in research in haemodialysis vary widely in the dimensions assessed; and the importance of these dimensions to patients and health professionals is unknown. This study aimed to identify the most important dimensions of fatigue to assess in patients on haemodialysis participating in trials. METHODS: In an international survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the absolute and relative importance of content and measurement dimensions to include in a core outcome measure of fatigue. A 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) was used to assess absolute importance and best-worst scale was used to assess importance of each dimension compared to others. RESULTS: In total, 169 patients/caregivers and 336 health professionals from 60 countries completed the survey. Both groups (patients/caregivers and health professionals) rated life participation (7.55), tiredness (7.40), level of energy (7.37), ability to think clearly (7.15), post-dialysis fatigue (7.13), motivation (7.03) and ability to concentrate (7.03) as critically important (mean Likert score greater than 7) content dimensions to include in a core outcome measure. Compared to patients and caregivers, health professionals rated post-dialysis fatigue, memory and verbal abilities more highly. Based on the relative importance scores, life participation was ranked most highly above all content dimensions. Severity was rated and ranked the most important measurement dimension by all stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A core outcome measure of fatigue should assess impact of fatigue on life participation, tiredness and level of energy, using a severity scale. A consistent and valid measurement of fatigue will improve the value of trials in supporting decision-making based on this important outcome.

Incidence of Ischaemic Heart Disease in Men and Women With End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) has fallen consistently in the general population; attributed to effective primary prevention strategies. Differences in incidence have been demonstrated by sex. Whether this fall in incidence and sex differences is mirrored in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is unclear. We aimed to establish the relative risk of IHD events in the ESKD population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2010 in people with ESKD in New South Wales. We performed data linkage of the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry and state wide hospital admission and death registry data and compared this to general population data. The primary outcome was the incidence rate, incidence rate ratio (IRR), and time-trend for any IHD event. We calculated these using indirect standardisation by IHD event. RESULTS: 10,766 participants, contributed 44,149 years of observation time. Incidence rates were substantially higher than the general population for all IHD events (any IHD event: IRR 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-1.9 for men, IRR 3.4, 95% CI 3.1-3.6 for women). Excess risk was higher in younger people (age 30-49 IRR 4.8, 95% CI 4.2-5.4), and in women with a three-fold increase risk overall and nearly a 10-fold increase in risk in young women (female age 30-49 years: IRR 9.8 95% CI 7.7-12.3), results were similar for angina and acute myocardial infarction. Ischaemic heart disease rates showed some decline for men over time, (ratio of IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95) but were stable for women (ratio of IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: People with ESKD have substantially higher rates of IHD than the general population, especially women, in whom no improvement appears evident over the past 10 years.

Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: The anaemia seen in chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be exacerbated by iron deficiency. Iron can be provided through different routes, with advantages and drawbacks of each route. It remains unclear whether the potential harms and additional costs of intravenous (IV) compared with oral iron are justified. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of IV iron supplementation compared with oral iron for anaemia in adults and children with CKD, including participants on dialysis, with kidney transplants and CKD not requiring dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 December 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which IV and oral routes of iron administration were compared in adults and children with CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) was used or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed to investigate between study differences. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 studies (3852 participants), 11 of which were added in this update. A low risk of bias was attributed to 20 (51%) studies for sequence generation, 14 (36%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for attrition bias and 20 (51%) for selective outcome reporting. All studies were at a high risk of performance bias. However, all studies were considered at low risk of detection bias because the primary outcome in all studies was laboratory-based and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IV iron compared with oral iron makes any difference to death (all causes) (11 studies, 1952 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64, 1.94) (absolute effect: 33 participants per 1000 with IV iron versus 31 per 1000 with oral iron), the number of participants needing to start dialysis (4 studies, 743 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41, 1.61) or the number needing blood transfusions (5 studies, 774 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55, 1.34) (absolute effect: 87 per 1,000 with IV iron versus 101 per 1,000 with oral iron). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether IV iron compared with oral iron reduces cardiovascular death because the certainty of this evidence was very low (3 studies, 206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.18). Quality of life was reported in five studies with four reporting no difference between treatment groups and one reporting improvement in participants treated with IV iron.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the numbers of participants, who experience allergic reactions or hypotension (15 studies, 2607 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.74) (absolute harm: 24 per 1000 with IV iron versus 7 per 1000) but may reduce the number of participants with all gastrointestinal adverse effects (14 studies, 1986 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66) (absolute benefit: 150 per 1000 with IV iron versus 319 per 1000). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin (13 studies, 2206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.04) (absolute benefit: 542 participants per 1,000 with IV iron versus 317 per 1000 with oral iron), increased haemoglobin (31 studies, 3373 participants: MD 0.72 g/dL, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05); ferritin (33 studies, 3389 participants: MD 224.84 µg/L, 95% CI 165.85 to 283.83) and transferrin saturation (27 studies, 3089 participants: MD 7.69%, 95% CI 5.10 to 10.28), and may reduce the dose required of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) (11 studies, 522 participants: SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.31) while making little or no difference to glomerular filtration rate (8 studies, 1052 participants: 0.83 mL/min, 95% CI -0.79 to 2.44). All analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. There were moderate to high degrees of heterogeneity in these analyses but in meta-regression, definite reasons for this could not be determined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies provide low certainty evidence that IV iron compared with oral iron increases haemoglobin, ferritin and transferrin levels in CKD participants, increases the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin and reduces ESA requirements. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether IV iron compared with oral iron influences death (all causes), cardiovascular death and quality of life though most studies reported only short periods of follow-up. Adverse effects were reported in only 50% of included studies. We therefore suggest that further studies that focus on patient-centred outcomes with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine if the use of IV iron is justified on the basis of reductions in ESA dose and cost, improvements in patient quality of life, and with few serious adverse effects.

Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop.

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop Report.

Fatigue is one of the most highly prioritized outcomes for patients and clinicians, but remains infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in hemodialysis. We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop with stakeholders to discuss the development and implementation of a core outcome measure for fatigue. 15 patients/caregivers and 42 health professionals (clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and industry representatives) from 9 countries participated in breakout discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. 4 themes for a core outcome measure emerged. Drawing attention to a distinct and all-encompassing symptom was explicitly recognizing fatigue as a multifaceted symptom unique to hemodialysis. Emphasizing the pervasive impact of fatigue on life participation justified the focus on how fatigue severely impaired the patient's ability to do usual activities. Ensuring relevance and accuracy in measuring fatigue would facilitate shared decision making about treatment. Minimizing burden of administration meant avoiding the cognitive burden, additional time, and resources required to use the measure. A core outcome measure that is simple, is short, and includes a focus on the severity of the impact of fatigue on life participation may facilitate consistent and meaningful measurement of fatigue in all trials to inform decision making and care of patients receiving hemodialysis.

Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop on Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Vascular Access.

Vascular access outcomes in hemodialysis are critically important for patients and clinicians, but frequently are neither patient relevant nor measured consistently in randomized trials. A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop was convened to discuss the development of a core outcome measure for vascular access. 13 patients/caregivers and 46 professionals (clinicians, policy makers, industry representatives, and researchers) attended. Participants advocated for vascular access function to be a core outcome based on the broad applicability of function regardless of access type, involvement of a multidisciplinary team in achieving a functioning access, and the impact of access function on quality of life, survival, and other access-related outcomes. A core outcome measure for vascular access required demonstrable feasibility for implementation across different clinical and trial settings. Participants advocated for a practical and flexible outcome measure with a simple actionable definition. Integrating patients' values and preferences was warranted to enhance the relevance of the measure. Proposed outcome measures for function included "uninterrupted use of the access without the need for interventions" and "ability to receive prescribed dialysis," but not "access blood flow," which was deemed too expensive and unreliable. These recommendations will inform the definition and implementation of a core outcome measure for vascular access function in hemodialysis trials.

Vascular Access Outcomes Reported in Maintenance Hemodialysis Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials have been performed with the goal of improving outcomes related to hemodialysis vascular access. If the reported outcomes are relevant and measured consistently to allow comparison of interventions across trials, such trials can inform decision making. This study aimed to assess the scope and consistency of vascular access outcomes reported in contemporary hemodialysis trials. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related intervention. OUTCOMES: The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified. RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions. LIMITATIONS: Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis.

Cognition in People With End-Stage Kidney Disease Treated With Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is associated with poorer quality of life, risk for hospitalization, and mortality. Cognitive impairment is common in people with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis, yet the severity and specific cognitive deficits are uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults receiving hemodialysis compared with the general population, people with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD), people receiving peritoneal dialysis, or people with nondialyzed chronic kidney failure. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials, cohort or cross-sectional studies without language restriction. INDEX TESTS: Validated neuropsychological tests of cognition. OUTCOMES: Cognitive test scores, aggregated by cognitive domain: orientation and attention, perception, memory, language, construction and motor performance, concept formation and reasoning, and executive functions. RESULTS: 42 studies of 3,522 participants. Studies were of high or uncertain risk of bias, assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. People treated with hemodialysis had worse cognition than the general population, particularly in attention (n=22; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.93; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.68). Hemodialysis patients performed better than nondialyzed patients with chronic kidney failure in attention (n=6; SMD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.96) and memory (n=6; SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.63), but had poorer memory than the general population (n=16; SMD, -0.41; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.09) and people with NDD-CKD (n=5; SMD, -0.40; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.21). There were insufficient data to show other differences among people receiving hemodialysis and those receiving peritoneal dialysis or with NDD-CKD. LIMITATIONS: Potentially biased studies, not wholly adjusted for education. High heterogeneity, mainly due to the large variety of tests used to assess cognition. CONCLUSIONS: People treated with hemodialysis have impaired cognitive function compared to the general population, particularly in the domains of orientation and attention and executive function. Cognitive deficits in specific domains should be further explored in this population and should be considered when approaching education and chronic disease management.

Acidosis: progression of chronic kidney disease and quality of life.

Metabolic acidosis (MA) is relatively common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) particularly in stages 4 and 5. It is assumed to play a contributory role in the development of several complications including bone disease, skeletal muscle wasting, altered protein synthesis, and degradation. Recent evidence also suggests that even mild acidosis might play a role in progressive glomerular filtration rate loss. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that correction of acidosis by alkali therapy attenuates these complications and improves quality of life. Despite several recent small and single-center studies supporting this notion, more robust evidence is required with regard to the long-term benefits of alkali therapy, type of alkali supplements, and the optimal level of serum bicarbonate.

Clinical significance of multi-frequency bioimpedance spectroscopy in peritoneal dialysis patients: independent predictor of patient survival.

BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly evident that the accurate assessment of hydration status is critical to care of a dialysis patient. Using the Body Composition Monitor, different parameters (overhydration (OH), extra-cellular water/total body water (ECW/TBW) or OH/ECW) have been proposed to indicate hydration status. We wished to determine which parameter (if any) was most predictive of all-cause mortality, and if this was independent of nutritional indices. METHODS: We performed a single-centre retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients between 1 January 2008 and 30 March 2012. Record review was undertaken to establish patient survival, clinical and demographic data. Follow-up was continued even after PD technique failure (transfer to haemodialysis) and transplantation. RESULTS: The study included 529 patients. OH index (OH and OH/ECW) was the independent predictor of mortality in multi-variate analysis. ECW/TBW as a continuous variable was not associated with increased risk of death. In contrast, patients that were severely overhydrated (highest 33%) had hazard ratios (HRs) that were statistically significant irrespective of the parameter used to define hydration. Using OH, severely overhydrated patients had an HR of 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-2.82, P < 0.01], OH/ECW: 2.09 (95% CI 1.36-3.20, P < 0.001) and ECW/TBW: 2.05 (95% CI 1.31-3.22, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results also indicated that there was no influence of body mass index (BMI) on the hydration parameter OH/ECW. OH/ECW remained an independent predictor of mortality when the BMI and lean tissue index were included in multivariate model. However, it remains to be determined if correcting the OH status of a patient will lead to improvement in mortality.

Estimation of cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance using a multivariate regression model with features selected from the finger photoplethysmogram and routine cardiovascular measurements.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) are two important parameters of the cardiovascular system. The ability to measure these parameters continuously and noninvasively may assist in diagnosing and monitoring patients with suspected cardiovascular diseases, or other critical illnesses. In this study, a method is proposed to estimate both the CO and SVR of a heterogeneous cohort of intensive care unit patients (N=48). METHODS: Spectral and morphological features were extracted from the finger photoplethysmogram, and added to heart rate and mean arterial pressure as input features to a multivariate regression model to estimate CO and SVR. A stepwise feature search algorithm was employed to select statistically significant features. Leave-one-out cross validation was used to assess the generalized model performance. The degree of agreement between the estimation method and the gold standard was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman bias ±precision (1.96 times standard deviation) for CO was -0.01 ±2.70 L min-1 when only photoplethysmogram (PPG) features were used, and for SVR was -0.87 ±412 dyn.s.cm-5 when only one PPG variability feature was used. CONCLUSIONS: These promising results indicate the feasibility of using the method described as a non-invasive preliminary diagnostic tool in supervised or unsupervised clinical settings.

Subsequent COVID-19 Prophylaxis in COVID-19 Associated Glomerulopathies.

Successful vaccination has been the decisive factor in the overall decline of SARS-CoV2 infection related morbidity and mortality. However, global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are ongoing, with reports of glomerular disease occurring in relation to both infection and vaccination. A particular rise in anti-GBM disease has been identified. Information is still emerging regarding the optimal management of such cases. We reviewed anti-GBM antibody detection rates at our test center over the past 5 years. We followed three patients with biopsy confirmed glomerular disease temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination. Each patient proceeded to receive subsequent COVID-19 vaccination as per immunologist recommendations. Further assessment included COVID-19 antibody testing in each case. A three-fold increase in significant anti-GBM antibody results noted at our center was associated with COVID infection in 10% of cases, and COVID vaccination in 25% of cases. We demonstrated that subsequent vaccination did not appear to lead to adverse effects including relapse in our three cases of COVID-19 vaccine-associated GN. We also identified positive COVID-19 antibody levels in two out of three cases, despite immunosuppression. We report a rise in anti-GBM antibody disease incidence. Our small study suggests that COVID-19 antibody testing can help determine COVID prophylaxis requirements, and subsequent vaccination with an alternative vaccine type appears safe.

Range and Consistency of Cardiovascular Outcomes Reported by Clinical Trials in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review.

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Trial evidence to improve cardiovascular outcomes is limited by inconsistent reporting of outcomes, which may also lack patient-relevance. This study aimed to assess the range and consistency of cardiovascular outcomes reported by contemporary trials in kidney transplant recipients. Methods: A systematic review of all randomized controlled trials involving adult kidney transplant recipients that reported at least 1 cardiovascular outcome from January 2012 to December 2019 was performed, including Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases. Trial characteristics were extracted and all levels of specification of the cardiovascular outcome measures reported were analyzed (the measure definition, metric' and method of aggregation). Measures assessing a similar aspect of cardiovascular disease were categorized into outcomes. Results: From 93 eligible trials involving 27 609 participants, 490 outcome measures were identified. The outcome measures were grouped into 38 outcomes. A cardiovascular composite was the most common outcome reported (40 trials, 43%) followed by cardiovascular mortality (42%) and acute coronary syndrome (31%). Cardiovascular composite was also the most heterogeneous outcome with 77 measures reported followed by cardiovascular mortality (n = 58) and inflammatory biomarkers (n = 51). The most common cardiovascular composite outcome components reported were major cardiovascular events (18 trials), stroke unspecified (11 trials), and myocardial infarction unspecified (10 trials). Conclusions: There is substantial heterogeneity in cardiovascular outcome reporting in kidney transplant trials.