Effects of citrate dialysate in chronic dialysis: a multicentre randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Although citrate dialysate (CiDi) is regarded to be safe, dialysis modalities using higher dialysate volumes, like haemodiafiltration (HDF), may expose patients to higher citrate load and thus increase the risk of complications. We investigated the residual risk of CiDi compared with standard dialysate (StDi) in patients on different dialysis modalities and its effect on dialysis dose. METHODS: In a multicentre randomized crossover study, 92 dialysis patients (HDF post-dilution: n = 44, HDF pre-dilution: n = 26, haemodialysis: n = 25) were treated for 4 weeks with each dialysate (StDi and CiDi). Hypocalcaemia (ionized calcium ≤0.9 mmol/L), alkalosis (pH ≥7.55), post-treatment bicarbonate ≥32 mmol/L, pre-treatment bicarbonate ≥27 mmol/L, intra-dialytic events (IEs) and adverse events (AEs) between dialysis sessions were investigated as primary end points. The secondary objective was dialysis efficacy, i.e. dose and removal ratios of urea, creatinine, phosphate and ß-2-microglobulin. RESULTS: Post-dialysis overcorrection of bicarbonate (>32 mmol/L) was less frequent with CiDi (P = 0.008). Other predefined calcium and acid-base disturbances did not vary. There was no significant difference in IE. However, more patients developed AEs such as fatigue, muscle spasms or pain using CiDi (StDi: 41 versus CiDi: 55 patients, P = 0.02), particularly in the first 2 weeks of exposure. Dialysis efficacy was comparable with both dialysates. CONCLUSIONS: It can be confirmed that CiDi is not associated with the development of severe calcium and acid-base disorders, even when dialysis modalities with higher citrate loads are used. However, a refinement of the CiDi composition to minimize AEs is necessary.

Determination of dialysis dose: a clinical comparison of methods.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend regular measurements of the delivered hemodialysis dose Kt/V. Nowadays, automatic non-invasive online measurements are available as alternatives to the conventional method with blood sampling, laboratory analysis, and calculation. METHODS: In a prospective clinical trial, three different methods determining dialysis dose were simultaneously applied: Kt/V(Dau) (conventional method with Daugirdas' formula), Kt/V(OCM) [online clearance measurement (OCM) with urea distribution volume V based on anthropometric estimate], and Kt/V(BCM) [OCM measurement with V measured by bioimpedance analysis (Body Composition Monitor)]. RESULTS: 1,076 hemodialysis patients were analyzed. The dialysis dose was measured as Kt/V(Dau) = 1.74 ± 0.45, Kt/V(OCM) = 1.47 ± 0.34, and Kt/V(BCM) = 1.65 ± 0.42. The difference between Kt/V(OCM) and Kt/V(BCM) was due to the difference between anthropometric estimated V(Watson) and measured V(BCM). Compared to Kt/V(Dau), Kt/V(OCM) was 15% lower and Kt/V(BCM) 5% lower. Kt/V(Dau) was incidentally prone to falsely high values due to operative errors, whereas in these cases OCM-based measurements Kt/V(OCM) and Kt/V(BCM) delivered realistic values. CONCLUSIONS: The automated OCM Kt/V(OCM) with anthropometric estimation of urea distribution volume was the easiest method to use, but Kt/V(BCM) with measured urea distribution volume was closer to the conventional method.