Prescribing the dialysis dose and treatment frequency in home haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in home haemodialysis (HHD) performed with low-flow dialysate devices and variable treatment schedules. The target standard Kt/V (stdKt/V) should be 2.3 volumes/week, according to KDOQI guidelines (2015). The current formula for stdKt/V does not help prescribe the dialysis dose (eKt/V) and treatment frequency (TF). The aim of this study was to obtain a formula for stdKt/V that is able to define the minimum required values of eKt/V and TF to achieve the targeted stdKtV. METHODS: Thirty-eight prevalent patients on HHD were enrolled. A total of 231 clinical datasets were available for urea modelling using the Solute-Solver software (SS), recommended by KDOQI guidelines. A new formula (stdKt/V = a + b × Kru + c × eKt/V) was obtained from multivariable regression analysis of stdKt/V vs eKt/V and residual kidney urea clearance (Kru). The values of coefficients a, b and c depend on the treatment schedules and the day of the week of blood sampling for the kinetic study (labdayofwk) and then vary for each of their foreseen 62 combinations. For practical purposes, we used only seven combinations, assuming Monday as a labdayofwk for each of the most common schedules of the 7 days of the week. RESULTS: The stdKt/V values obtained with SS were compared with the paired ones obtained with the formula. The mean ± standard deviation stdKt/V values obtained with SS and the formula were 3.043 ± 0.530 and 2.990 ± 0.553, respectively, with 95% confidence interval +0.15 to -0.26. A 'prescription graph' was built using the formula to draw lines expressing the relationship between Kru and required eKt/V for each TF. Using this graph, TF could have been reduced from the delivered 5.8 ± 0.8 to 4.8 ± 0.8 weekly sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula for stdKtV is reliable and can support clinicians to prescribe the dialysis dose and TF in patients undergoing HHD.

Validation of formulas calculating normalized protein catabolic rate in patients undergoing home hemodialysis.

Depner and Daugirdas developed a simplified formula to estimate the normalized protein catabolic rate in patients on twice- or thrice-weekly hemodialysis (JASN, 1996). The aim of our work was to establish formulas in more frequent schedules and validate them in home-based hemodialysis patients. We realized that the structure of Depner and Daugirdas' normalized protein catabolic rate formulas has a general meaning and can be expressed as PCRn = C0/[a + b*(Kt/V) + c/(Kt/V)] + d, where C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen, Kt/V is dialysis dose, a, b, c, d are the specific coefficients for each combination of home-based hemodialysis schedules and the day of blood sampling. The same applies to the formula that adjusts C0 (C'0) for residual kidney clearance of blood water urea (Kru) and urea distribution volume (V): C'0 = C0*[1 + (a1 + b1/(Kt/V))*Kru/V]. On this basis, we computed the six coefficients (a, b, c, d, a1, b1) for each of the 50 possible combinations and simulated a total of 24,000 weekly dialysis cycles using the Daugirdas Solute Solver software recommended by the KDOQI 2015 guidelines. From the associated statistical analyses we obtained 50 sets of coefficient values, which were validated comparing the paired normalized protein catabolic rate values (i.e., those estimated with our formulas with those modeled with Solute Solver) in 210 datasets of 27 patients on home-based hemodialysis. The mean values ± SD were 1.06 ± 0.262 and 1.07 ± 0.283 g/kg/day, respectively, with a mean difference of 0.004 ± 0.034 g/kg/day (p = 0.11). The paired values were highly correlated (R2 = 0.99). In conclusion, even if the coefficient values were validated in a relatively small sample of patients, they allow an accurate estimation of normalized protein catabolic rate in home-based hemodialysis patients.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown.

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

Routine assessment of kidney urea clearance, dialysis dose and protein catabolic rate in the once-weekly haemodialysis regimen.

BACKGROUND: The dialysis dose (Kt/V) and normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn) are the most useful indices derived from the urea kinetic model (UKM) in haemodialysis (HD) patients. The kidney urea clearance (Kru) is another important UKM parameter which plays a key role in the prescription of incremental HD. Ideally, the three kinetic parameters should be assessed using the complex software Solute Solver based on the double pool UKM. In the clinical setting, however, the three indices are estimated with simplified formulae. The recently introduced software SPEEDY assembles the aforementioned equations in a plain spreadsheet, to produce quite accurate results of Kru, Kt/V and PCRn. Unfortunately, specific equations to compute Kt/V and PCRn for patients on a once-weekly HD regimen (1HD/wk) were not available at the time SPEEDY was built-up. We devised a new version of SPEEDY (SPEEDY-1) and an even simpler variant (SPEEDY-1S), using two recently published equations for the 1HD/wk schedule . Moreover, we also added a published equation to estimate the equivalent renal clearance (EKR) normalized to urea distribution volume (V) of 35 L (EKR35) from Kru and Kt/V . Aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained using the new methods (SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S) with those provided by the reference method Solute Solver. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred historical patients being treated with the once-weekly HD regimen were enrolled. A total of 500 HD sessions associated to the availability of monthly UKM studies were analysed in order to obtain Kru, single pool Kt/V (spKt/V), equilibrated Kt/V (eKt/V), V, PCRn and EKR35 values by using Solute Solver, SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S. RESULTS: When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1 and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences but one were statistically significant at the one-sample t-test; however, the agreement limits at Bland-Altman analysis showed that all differences were negligible. When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1S and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences were statistically significant; however, the agreement limits showed that the differences were negligible as far as Kru, spKt/V and eKt/V are concerned, though much larger regarding V, PCRn and EKR35. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented SPEEDY with a new version specific for the once-weekly HD regimen, SPEEDY-1. It provides accurate results and is presently the best alternative to Solute Solver. Using SPEEDY-1S led to a larger difference in PCRn and EKR35, which could be acceptable for clinical practice if SPEEDY-1 is not available.

Improving the "second generation Daugirdas equation" to estimate Kt/V on the once-weekly haemodialysis schedule.

INTRODUCTION: The haemodialysis (HD) dose, as expressed by Kt/V urea, is currently routinely estimated with the second generation Daugirdas (D2) equation (Daugirdas in J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1205-1213, 1993). This equation, initially devised for a thrice-weekly schedule, was modified to be used for all dialysis schedules (Daugirdas et al. in Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:2156-2160, 2013), by adopting a variable factor that adjusts for the urea generation (GFAC) over the preceding inter-dialysis interval (PIDI, days). This factor was set at 0.008 for the mid-week session of the standard thrice-weekly HD schedule. In theory, by setting PIDI = 7, one could get GFAC = 0.0025, to be used in patients on the once-weekly (1HD/wk) schedule, but actually this has never been tested. Moreover, GFAC was derived not taking into account the residual kidney urea clearance (Kru). Aim of the present study was to provide a specific value of GFAC for patients on  a once-weekly hemodialysis schedule. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The equation to predict GFAC (GFAC-1) in the 1HD/wk schedule was established in a group of 80 historical Italian patients (group 1) and validated in a group of 100 historical Spanish patients (group 2), by comparing the Kt/V computed using GFAC-1 (Kt/VGFAC-1) with the reference Kt/V (Kt/VSS) values, as computed with the web-based Solute-Solver software (SS) (Daugirdas et al. in Am J Kidney Dis 54:798-809, 2009). Three more sets of Kt/V (Kt/V0.008, Kt/V0.0025 and Kt/V0.0035) values were computed using the GFAC of the original D2 equation (0.008), the GFAC predicted by PIDI/7 (0.0025) and the mean observed GFAC-1 (0.0035), respectively. They were compared with the reference Kt/VSS values. RESULTS: The predicting equation obtained from group 1 was: GFAC-1 = 0.0022 + 0.0105 × Kru/V (R2 = 0.93). Mean Kt/VSS in the group 2 was 1.54 ± 0.29 SD (N = 500 HD sessions). The mean percent differences for Kt/V0.008, Kt/V0.0025, Kt/VGFAC-1, and Kt/V0.0035 were 5.1 ± 1.0%, - 1.4 ± 0.7%, 0.0 ± 0.3%, - 0.3 ± 0.7%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between Kt/V values, except for Kt/V0.008. CONCLUSION: A linear relationship was found between GFAC and Kru/V in patients on the 1HD/wk schedule. Such a relationship is able to improve the "second generation Daugirdas equation" for an accurate estimate of the single pool Kt/V in this setting. However, a simple replacement in the D2 equation of 0.008 with the mean observed GFAC (0.0035) could suffice in the clinical practice.

The lacking equation that estimates the protein catabolic rate in patients on once-weekly haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn) is one of the key indices derived from the urea kinetic model (UKM) in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Ideally, it should be assessed using the double pool UKM (KDOQI clinical practice guidelines, AIKD, 2015), as the web-based software Solute-Solver (SS) does (Daugirdas et al., AJKD, 2009). Simple formulae exist to compute PCRn for patients on thrice- or twice-weekly HD schedule, but not for patients on once-weekly HD schedule (1HD/wk). Aim of the present technical note was to introduce the lacking equation that estimates PCRn in the 1HD/wk regimen. METHODS: Data of a single HD session associated to monthly UKM studies were retrieved from the electronic database of our dialysis unit for 80 historical patients on 1HD/wk regimen. The UKM parameters, as calculated with SS, were used in a subgroup of 40 randomly selected patients (group 1) to build-up a multiple regression model of PCRn. The latter was used to predict PCRn (PCRnPred) values in the cohort of the remaining 40 patients (group 2). The Bland-Altman plot was used to analyse the agreement between PCRnPred and the paired "observed" (PCRnObs) values, as measured with SS. RESULTS: The following equation was established by means of the multiple regression analysis: PCRn = - 0.46 + 0.01 × C0 + 0.09 × eKt/V + 3.94 × Kru/V, where C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen concentration, eKt/V is the equilibrated Kt/V, Kru is the residual renal urea clearance and V is the post-dialysis urea distribution volume. The PCRnPred values were 0.99 ± 0.24 g/kg/day; the PCRnObs values were 0.96 ± 0.23 g/kg/day (mean difference 0.03 ± 0.05 g/kg/day). Their difference at the Bland-Altman analysis ranged from - 0.08 to + 0.13 g/kg/day. Finally, a nomogram was drawn: it can be used to estimate not only PCRn from Kru/V and C0, but also C0 as a function of Kru/V and PCRn. CONCLUSIONS: The equation here introduced allows a simple and accurate estimate of PCRn in patients on once-weekly HD regimen. The availability of the nomogram relating C0 to PCRn and Kru/V could be a further step to make safer and safer the once-weekly HD regimen. The following equation was established by means of the multiple regression analysis [Formula: see text] where PCRn is the normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn), C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen concentration (BUN), eKt/V is the equilibrated Kt/V, Kru is the residual renal urea clearance and V is the post-dialysis urea distribution volume. A nomogram relating pre-dialysis BUN to PCRn and Kru/V could be drawn: it can be used to estimate not only PCRn from Kru/V and pre-dialysis BUN, but also pre-dialysis BUN as a function of Kru/V and PCRn.

What volume to choose to assess online Kt/V?

INTRODUCTION: Urea distribution volume (V) can be assessed in different ways, among them the anthropometric Watson Volume (VW). However, many studies have shown that VW does not coincide with V and that the latter can be more accurately estimated with other methods. The present multicentre study was designed to answer the question: what V to choose to assess online Kt/V? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and postdialysis blood urea nitrogen concentrations and the usual input data set for urea kinetic modelling were obtained for a single dialysis session in 201 Caucasian patients treated in 9 Italian dialysis units. Only dialysis machines measuring ionic dialysance (ID) were utilized. ID reflects very accurately the mean effective dialyser urea clearance (Kd). Six different V values were obtained: the first one was VW; the second one was computed from the equation established by the HEMO Study to predict the single pool-adjusted modelled V from VW (VH) (Daugirdas JT et al. KI 64: 1108, 2003); the others were estimated kinetically as: 1. V_ID, in which ID is direct input in the in the double pool variable volume (dpVV) calculation by means of the Solute-solver software; 2. V_Kd, in which the estimated Kd is direct input in the dpVV calculation by means of the Solute-solver software; 3. V_KTV, in which V is calculated by means of the second generation Daugirdas equation; 4. V_SPEEDY, in which ID is direct input in the dpVV calculation by means of the SPEEDY software able to provide results quite similar to those provided by Solute-solver. RESULTS: Mean± SD of the main data are reported: measured ID was 190.6 ± 29.6 mL/min, estimated Kd was 211.6 ± 29.0 mL/min. The relationship between paired data was poor (R2 = 0.34) and their difference at the Bland-Altman plot was large (21 ± 27 mL/min). VW was 35.3 ± 6.3 L, VH 29.5 ± 5.5, V_ID 28.99 ± 7.6 L, V_SPEEDY 29.4 ± 7.6 L, V_KTV 29.7 ± 7.0 L. The mean ratio VW/V_ID was 1.22, (i.e. VW overestimated V_ID by about 22%). The mean ratio VH/V_ID was 1.02 (i.e. VH overestimated V_ID by only 2%). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and VW was poor (R2 = 0.48) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was very large (- 6.39 ± 5.59 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and VH was poor (R2 = 47) and their mean difference was small but with a large SD (- 0.59 ± 5.53 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and V_SPEEDY was excellent (R2 = 0.993) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was very small (- 0.54 ± 0.64 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and V_KTV was excellent (R2 = 0.985) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was small (- 0.85 ± 1.06 L). CONCLUSIONS: V_ID can be considered the reference method to estimate the modelled V and then the first choice to assess Kt/V. V_SPEEDY is a valuable alternative to V_ID. V_KTV can be utilized in the daily practice, taking also into account its simple way of calculation. VW is not advisable because it leads to underestimation of Kt/V by about 20%.

Incremental hemodialysis, a valuable option for the frail elderly patient.

Management of older people on dialysis requires focus on the wider aspects of aging as well as dialysis. Recognition and assessment of frailty is vital in changing our approach in elderly patients. Current guidelines in dialysis have a limited evidence base across all age group, but particularly the elderly. We need to focus on new priorities of care when we design guidelines "for people not diseases". Patient-centered goal-directed therapy, arising from shared decision-making between physician and patient, should allow adaption of the dialysis regime. Hemodialysis (HD) in the older age group can be complicated by intradialytic hypotension, prolonged time to recovery, and access-related problems. There is increasing evidence relating to the harm associated with the delivery of standard thrice-weekly HD. Incremental HD has a lower burden of treatment. There appears to be no adverse clinical effects during the first years of dialysis in presence of a significant residual kidney function. The advantages of incremental HD might be particularly important for elderly patients with short life expectancy. There is a need for more research into specific topics such as the assessment of the course of frailty with progression of chronic kidney disease and after dialysis initiation, the choice of dialysis modality impacting on the trajectory of frailty, the timing of dialysis initiation impacting on frailty or on other outcomes. In conclusion, understanding each individual's goals of care in the context of his or her life experience is particularly important in the elderly, when overall life expectancy is relatively short, and life experience or quality of life may be the priority.

A user-friendly tool for incremental haemodialysis prescription.

Background: There is a recently heightened interest in incremental haemodialysis (IHD), the main advantage of which could likely be a better preservation of the residual kidney function of the patients. The implementation of IHD, however, is hindered by many factors, among them, the mathematical complexity of its prescription. The aim of our study was to design a user-friendly tool for IHD prescription, consisting of only a few rows of a common spreadsheet. Methods: The keystone of our spreadsheet was the following fundamental concept: the dialysis dose to be prescribed in IHD depends only on the normalized urea clearance provided by the native kidneys (KRUn) of the patient for each frequency of treatment, according to the variable target model recently proposed by Casino and Basile (The variable target model: a paradigm shift in the incremental haemodialysis prescription. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017. 32: 182-190). The first step was to put in sequence a series of equations in order to calculate, firstly, KRUn and, then, the key parameters to be prescribed for an adequate IHD; the second step was to compare KRUn values obtained with our spreadsheet with KRUn values obtainable with the gold standard Solute-solver (Daugirdas JT et al., Solute-solver: a web-based tool for modeling urea kinetics for a broad range of hemodialysis schedules in multiple patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2009. 54: 798-809) in a sample of 40 incident haemodialysis patients. Results: Our spreadsheet provided excellent results. The differences with Solute-solver were clinically negligible. This was confirmed by the Bland-Altman plot built to analyse the agreement between KRUn values obtained with the two methods: the difference was 0.07 ± 0.05 mL/min/35 L. Conclusions: Our spreadsheet is a user-friendly tool able to provide clinically acceptable results in IHD prescription. Two immediate consequences could derive: (i) a larger dissemination of IHD might occur; and (ii) our spreadsheet could represent a useful tool for an ineludibly needed full-fledged clinical trial, comparing IHD with standard thrice-weekly HD.

How to set the stage for a full-fledged clinical trial testing 'incremental haemodialysis'.

Most people who make the transition to maintenance haemodialysis (HD) therapy are treated with a fixed dose of thrice-weekly HD (3HD/week) regimen without consideration of their residual kidney function (RKF). The RKF provides an effective and naturally continuous clearance of both small and middle molecules, plays a major role in metabolic homeostasis, nutritional status and cardiovascular health, and aids in fluid management. The RKF is associated with better patient survival and greater health-related quality of life. Its preservation is instrumental to the prescription of incremental (1HD/week to 2HD/week) HD. The recently heightened interest in incremental HD has been hindered by the current limitations of the urea kinetic model (UKM), which tend to overestimate the needed dialysis dose in the presence of a substantial RKF. A recent paper by Casino and Basile suggested a variable target model (VTM), which gives more clinical weight to the RKF and allows less frequent HD treatments at lower RKF as opposed to the fixed target model, based on the wrong concept of the clinical equivalence between renal and dialysis clearance. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolling incident patients and comparing incremental HD (prescribed according to the VTM) with the standard 3HD/week schedule and focused on hard outcomes, such as survival and health-related quality of life of patients, is urgently needed. The first step in designing such a study is to compute the 'adequacy lines' and the associated fitting equations necessary for the most appropriate allocation of the patients in the two arms and their correct and safe follow-up. In conclusion, the potentially important clinical and financial implications of the incremental HD render it highly promising and warrant RCTs. The UKM is the keystone for conducting such studies.

Is incremental hemodialysis ready to return on the scene? From empiricism to kinetic modelling.

Most people who make the transition to maintenance dialysis therapy are treated with a fixed dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis regimen without considering their residual kidney function (RKF). The RKF provides effective and naturally continuous clearance of both small and middle molecules, plays a major role in metabolic homeostasis, nutritional status, and cardiovascular health, and aids in fluid management. The RKF is associated with better patient survival and greater health-related quality of life, although these effects may be confounded by patient comorbidities. Preservation of the RKF requires a careful approach, including regular monitoring, avoidance of nephrotoxins, gentle control of blood pressure to avoid intradialytic hypotension, and an individualized dialysis prescription including the consideration of incremental hemodialysis. There is currently no standardized method for applying incremental hemodialysis in practice. Infrequent (once- to twice-weekly) hemodialysis regimens are often used arbitrarily, without knowing which patients would benefit the most from them or how to escalate the dialysis dose as RKF declines over time. The recently heightened interest in incremental hemodialysis has been hindered by the current limitations of the urea kinetic models (UKM) which tend to overestimate the dialysis dose required in the presence of substantial RKF. This is due to an erroneous extrapolation of the equivalence between renal urea clearance (Kru) and dialyser urea clearance (Kd), correctly assumed by the UKM, to the clinical domain. In this context, each ml/min of Kd clears the urea from the blood just as 1 ml/min of Kru does. By no means should such kinetic equivalence imply that 1 ml/min of Kd is clinically equivalent to 1 ml/min of urea clearance provided by the native kidneys. A recent paper by Casino and Basile suggested a variable target model (VTM) as opposed to the fixed model, because the VTM gives more clinical weight to the RKF and allows less frequent hemodialysis treatments at lower RKF. The potentially important clinical and financial implications of incremental hemodialysis render it highly promising and warrant randomized controlled trials.

The variable target model: a paradigm shift in the incremental haemodialysis prescription.

Background: The recent interest in incremental haemodialysis (HD) is hindered by the current prescription based on a fixed target model (FTM) for the total (dialytic + renal) equivalent continuous clearance (ECC). The latter is expressed either as standard Kt/V (stdKt/V), i.e. the pre-dialysis averaged concentration of urea-based ECC, or EKRc, i.e. the time averaged concentration-based ECC, corrected for volume (V) = 40 L. Accordingly, there are two different targets: stdKt/V = 2.3 volumes per week (v/wk) and EKRc = 13 mL/min/40 L. However, fixing the total ECC necessarily implies perfect equivalence of its components-the residual renal urea clearance (Kru) and dialysis clearance (Kd). This assumption is wrong because Kru has much greater clinical weight than Kd. Here we propose that the ECC target varies as an inverse function of Kru, from a maximum value in anuria to a minimum value at Kru levels not yet requiring dialysis. The aim of the present study was to compare the current FTM with the proposed variable target model (VTM). Methods: The double pool urea kinetic model was used to model dialysis sessions for 360 virtual patients and establish equations predicting the ECC as a function of Kd, Kru and the number of sessions per week. An end-dialysis urea distribution V of 35 L (corresponding to a body surface area of 1.73 m 2 ) was used, so that the current EKRc target of 13 mL/min/40 L could be recalculated at an EKRc 35 value of 12 mL/min/35 L equal to 12 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The latter also coincides with the maximum value of the EKRc 35 variable target in anuria. The minimum target value of EKRc 35 was assumed to coincide with Kru corrected for V = 35 L (i.e. Krc 35 = 6 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). The corresponding target for stdKt/V was assumed to vary from 2.3 v/wk at Krc 35 = 0 to 1.7 v/wk at Krc 35 = 6 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . On this basis, the variable target values can be obtained from the following linear equations: target EKRc 35 = 12 - Krc 35 ; target stdKt/V = 2.3 - 0.1 × Krc 35 . Two versions of stdKt/V were considered: the classic version (stdKt/V Gotch ) with Kru at 70%, and the current version (stdKt/V Daug ) with Kru at 100%. Results: The VTM with stdKt/V Gotch produces results very close to those using the FTM with stdKt/V Daug . Once-weekly HD is virtually not allowed by the FTM. In contrast, the VTM allows dialysis to start at Krc 35 ∼5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 on a once-weekly HD schedule, at least in relatively healthy patients; this schedule can be maintained until Krc 35 falls below 4 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , at which point the schedule should be changed to a twice-weekly HD schedule, that, in turn, could be maintained until Krc 35 falls below 2 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . Conclusions: A paradigm shift from the FTM to the VTM in the prescription of incremental HD is proposed, whereby the VTM would allow less frequent treatments at lower Kru, with important clinical and economic implications. This approach is likely to be safe but needs to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Variability of blood pressure in dialysis patients: a new marker of cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients have a high cardiovascular mortality, and hypertension is the most prevalent treatable risk factor. We aimed to assess the predictive significance of dialysis-to-dialysis variability in blood pressure in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We performed a historical cohort study in 1,088 prevalent hemodialysis patients, followed up for 5 years. The risk of cardiovascular death was determined in relation to dialysis-to-dialysis variability in blood pressure, maximum blood pressure and pulse pressure. RESULTS: Variability in blood pressure was a predictor of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.242; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.004-1.537; p=0.046). Also age (HR=1.021; 95% CI, 1.011-1.048; p=0.049), diabetes (HR=1.134; 95% CI, 1.128-1.451; p=0.035), creatinine (HR=0.837; 95% CI, 0.717-0.977; p=0.024) and albumin (HR=0.901; 95% CI, 0.821-0.924; p=0.022) influenced mortality. Maximum blood pressure and pulse pressure did not show any effect on cardiovascular death. CONCLUSION: Dialysis-to-dialysis variability in blood pressure is a predictor of cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients, and blood pressure variability may be used in managing hypertension and predicting outcomes in dialysis patients.

[The grey line of dialysis initiation: as early as possible that is, by the incremental modality]. / La linea grigia dell'inizio dialisi: prima possibile, ovvero con modalita' incrementale.

In the past, the initiation of dialysis treatment was determined by the appearance of signs and symptoms of uremia along with biochemical parameters. More recently, based on the findings of observational studies, it was hypothesized that an earlier start would benefit patients. The endorsement of this concept by international guidelines has led to the current practice of starting dialysis at GFR levels of 10 to 15 mL/ min/1.73 m2. However, recent observational studies taking into proper account the lead time bias showed a worse rather than better prognosis in early starters, suggesting that the previous studies might have been flawed. The IDEAL (Initiating Dialysis Early And Late) study has shown that starting dialysis ''just in time'', i.e., at the occurrence of uremic symptoms, does not harm the patient in that it is associated with the same clinical outcomes as early dialysis initiation. We believe that these results are compatible with our hypothesis that starting peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis with an incremental modality could be appropriate for an asymptomatic patient with objective signs of mild uremia and a measured GFR around 10 mL/min/1.73 m2. In fact, when the GFR is relatively high, a reduced dialysis dose and/or frequency could suffice to control mild uremia, while possibly preserving the residual renal function owing to the reduced contact time between blood and bio-incompatible dialysis materials. The dialysis dose and/or frequency could be increased step by step, at the occurrence of symptoms, marked biochemical derangements or problems with volume control, without computing weekly Kt/Vurea.

[Dialysis dose quantification in critically ill patients]. / Quantificazione della dose di dialisi in area critica.

Acute kidney injury affects about 35% of intensive care unit patients. Renal replacement therapy is required in about 5% of such patients and is associated with a mortality rate as high as 50% to 80%. The latter is likely more related to the failure of extrarenal organs than to an insufficient dialysis dose. This could explain, at least in part, the findings of 2 recent trials (VA/ NIH and RENAL) where the expected dose-outcome relationship was not confirmed. These results cannot be taken to infer that assessing the dialysis dose is no longer required. The contrary is true, in that the common finding of large differences between prescribed and delivered doses calls for accurate dose assessment, at least to avoid underdialysis. The minimum adequate levels are now a Kt/V urea of 1.2 to 1.4 three times a week (3x/wk) on intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), and an effluent of 20 mL/kg/h for 85% of the time on continuous renal replacement therapy (CRTT). Both these parameters can be easily measured but are far from ideal indices because they account neither for residual renal function nor for irregular dose delivery. The equivalent renal urea clearance (EKRjc), by expressing the averaged renal+dialytic urea clearance over the whole treatment period, is able to account for the above factors. Although assessing EKRjc is quite complex, for regular 3x/wk IHD one could use the formula EKRjc=10 Kt/V+1 to compute that a Kt/V of 1.2 and 1.4 corresponds to an EKRjc of 13 and 15 mL/min, respectively. On the other hand, the hourly effluent per kg is numerically similar to EKRjc. On this basis it can be calculated that in non-prediluted really continuous treatment, the recommended CRRT dose (EKRjc=20 mL/min) is 33% higher than the EKRjc of 15 mL/min, corresponding to the recommended Kt/V of 1.4 on 3x/wk IHD.