Impact of diffusion, ultrafiltration, and posture on total body electrical resistance in patients on hemodialysis.

Monitoring of hydration in patients on hemodialysis (HD) by currently available bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) methods is hampered by limited accuracy. This may be caused by changes in total body electrical resistance (TBER) that are induced by processes other than ultrafiltration (UF). To identify these sources of error, we examined the impact of UF, diffusion, and postural change (PC), separately. Extracellular TBER (TBERe) was measured by bioimpedance spectroscopy every 30 min in 23 patients on HD, for 2 h during diffusion-only (DO), followed by 2-h UF-only (UFO). The impact of PC from upright to semi-recumbent position was assessed by a 2-h TBERe measurement on the day after HD. TBERe increased by 23.5 ± 12.4 Ω (P < 0.001) during DO and by 40.0 ± 16.2 Ω (P < 0.001) during UFO. PC, evaluated on a separate day, was associated with an increase in TBERe of 27.6 ± 26.0 Ω (P < 0.001). TBERe changes during DO were mainly attributed to PC and to a lesser extent to electrolyte exchange. Extrapolation of the data to a conventional 4-h HD session indicates that about 32% of the total increase in TBERe is not related to UF. In conclusion, a significant part of the increase in TBER during HD is not related to UF but can be attributed to other processes such as the effects of PC and diffusion-related electrolyte exchange. These factors have to be taken into account when TBER-guided UF is considered.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Current BIA methods have limited accuracy in patients on HD. This may be related to the incorrect assumption that all changes in total body electrical resistance (TBER) are caused by changes in body water volumes. The present study indicates that two-thirds of the change in TBER during a conventional 4-h HD session can be attributed to fluid extraction, and that the remaining part is caused by other processes such as postural change and electrolyte exchange. This may cause volume prediction errors when not recognized.

Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 10 European medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) and ARAS of 50% or greater. INTERVENTION: Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points. LIMITATION: Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting. CONCLUSION: Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.