Nocturnal home hemodialysis with low-flow dialysate: Retrospective analysis of the first European patients.

INTRODUCTION: Despite mounting evidence that increased frequency and duration of hemodialysis (HD) improves outcomes, less than 1% of HD patients worldwide receive nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD). Many perceived barriers exist to providing NHD and increasing its provision. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of nocturnal therapy using a low-flow dialysate system in 4 European centers for a minimum of 12 months, with data collected on patient demographics, training times, safety features, medications, and biochemical parameters at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. FINDINGS: Data were collected on 21 patients, with 12-month analysis available for 20 patients. Mean dialysis duration was 28 hours per week, with most dialysis on an alternate night regimen using 50-60 L of dialysate per session. All vascular access types were represented, and low molecular weight heparin was used as a bolus. All biochemical parameters met European standards, with a trend for improvement in standardized Kt/V, phosphate, hemoglobin, and albumin. There was a significant reduction in phosphate binder usage and a reduction in blood pressure medication. Training time was 9.6 sessions for independence at home, with 2 additional sessions to transition to NHD. Additional safety features included an alarmed drip tray under the cycler and moisture sensors under the venous needle (all patients used dual-cannulation technique). No patient safety events were reported. DISCUSSION: These data support the use of a low-flow dialysate system for provision of NHD at home. Biochemical parameters were good, medication burden was reduced at 12 months, and all patients received more than double the duration of HD provided in standard in-center units. While patient numbers were small, low-flow dialysis in this cohort was both effective and safe. Use of this alternative HD system could reduce some of the barriers to NHD, increasing the uptake of therapy in Europe, and improving long-term patient outcomes.

Intra-dialytic hypotension: Identifying patients most at risk.

BACKGROUND: Intra-dialytic hypotension (IDH) remains a frequent but serious complication of haemodialysis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational analysis of our prevalent dialysis population extracting data from an online database. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-two patients underwent 21 consecutive outpatient dialysis sessions during the study period: Of the 9,072 dialysis sessions studied, 438 were complicated by episodes of IDH (4.8%). 266/432 patients were asymptomatic whilst 166/432 experienced at least one episode of IDH. Symptomatic patients had significantly lower pre-dialysis systolic blood pressures (137 mmHg compared with 146 mmHg p < 0.0001) and demonstrated a greater per cent drop in their systolic blood pressure (delta systolic) before and after dialysis (9.7% vs. 4.1% p < 0.0001). Patients taking either a single or no anti-hypertensive agents had a significantly higher delta systolic than those on two or more anti-hypertensive agents (7.6% vs. 2.2% p < 0.01) and were almost 50% more likely to suffer from IDH (RR = 1.48, p = 0.017). Using logistical regression we identified pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure and delta systolic blood pressure as strong predictor variables for IDH (p < 0.0001). We constructed a model able to calculate the risk of an individual patient suffering with IDH using delta systolic and pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure. A ROC analysis suggests this to be an accurate model (AUC = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Delta systolic blood pressure is clinically useful in identifying patients most at risk of IDH. Anti-hypertensive medication use is associated with a lower delta systolic and a lower risk of IDH.