No abstract

Hemodialysis patient survival is dependent on the availability of a reliable vascular access. In clinical practice, procedures for vascular access cannulation vary from clinic to clinic. We investigated the impact of cannulation technique on arteriovenous fistula and graft survival. Based on an April 2009 cross-sectional survey of vascular access cannulation practices in 171 dialysis units, a cohort of patients with corresponding vascular access survival information was selected for follow-up ending March 2012. Of the 10,807 patients enrolled in the original survey, access survival data were available for 7058 patients from nine countries. Of these, 90.6% had an arteriovenous fistula and 9.4% arteriovenous graft. Access needling was by area technique for 65.8%, rope-ladder for 28.2%, and buttonhole for 6%. The most common direction of puncture was antegrade with bevel up (43.1%). A Cox regression model was applied, adjusted for within-country effects, and defining as events the need for creation of a new vascular access. Area cannulation was associated with a significantly higher risk of access failure than rope-ladder or buttonhole. Retrograde direction of the arterial needle with bevel down was also associated with an increased failure risk. Patient application of pressure during cannulation appeared more favorable for vascular access longevity than not applying pressure or using a tourniquet. The higher risk of failure associated with venous pressures under 100 or over 150 mm Hg should open a discussion on limits currently considered acceptable.

In hemodialysis patients extracellular fluid overload is a predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and a relation with inflammation has been reported in previous studies. The magnitude and nature of this interaction and the effects of moderate fluid overload and extracellular fluid depletion on survival are still unclear. We present the results of an international cohort study in 8883 hemodialysis patients from the European MONDO initiative database where, during a three-month baseline period, fluid status was assessed using bioimpedance and inflammation by C-reactive protein. All-cause mortality was recorded during 12 months of follow up. In a second analysis a three-month baseline period was added to the first baseline period, and changes in fluid and inflammation status were related to all-cause mortality during six-month follow up. Both pre-dialysis estimated fluid overload and fluid depletion were associated with an increased mortality, already apparent at moderate levels of estimated pre-dialysis fluid overload (1.1-2.5L); hazard ratio 1.64 (95% confidence interval 1.35-1.98). In contrast, post-dialysis estimated fluid depletion was associated with a survival benefit (0.74 [0.62-0.90]). The concurrent presence of fluid overload and inflammation was associated with the highest risk of death. Thus, while pre-dialysis fluid overload was associated with inflammation, even in the absence of inflammation, fluid overload remained a significant risk factor for short-term mortality, even following improvement of fluid status.

Background and objectives High body mass index appears protective in hemodialysis patients, but uncertainty prevails regarding which components of body composition, fat or lean body mass, are primarily associated with survival. (FTIs), which are the respective tissue masses normalized to height squared, relative to an age-and sex-matched healthy population. The relationship between LTI and FTI and all-cause mortality was studied by Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariate Cox regression, and smoothing spline ANOVA logistic regression.Results In 37,345 hemodialysis patients, median (25th-75th percentile) LTI and FTI were 12.2 (10.3-14.5) and 9.8 (6.6-12.4) kg/m 2 , respectively. Median (25th-75th percentile) follow-up time was 266 (132-379) days; 3458 (9.2%) patients died during follow-up. Mortality was lowest with both LTI and FTI in the 10th-90th percentile (reference group) and significantly higher at the lower LTI and FTI extreme (hazard ratio [HR], 3.37; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.94 to 3.87; P,0.001). Survival was best with LTI between 15 and 20 kg/m 2 and FTI between 4 and 15 kg/m 2 (probability of death during follow-up: ,5%). When taking the relation between both compartments into account, the interaction was significant (P=0.01). Higher FTI appeared protective in patients with low LTI (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.94 to 3.87; P,0.001 at low LTI-low FTI, decreasing to HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.47 to 2.17; P,0.001 at low LTI-high FTI).Conclusions This large international study indicates best survival in patients with both LTI and FTI in the 10th-90th percentiles of a healthy population. In analyses of body composition, both lean tissue and fat tissue compartments and also their relationship should be considered.

In sodium profiling, the sodium concentration in the dialysis fluid, instead of being constant, follows a time-dependent profile over the course of a hemodialysis session. The main aim of this manipulation is to avoid osmotic disequilibrium by keeping plasma osmolality in the physiological range. Further advantages of sodium profiling are a reduction in the incidence of muscle cramps, improved sodium removal, and improved vascular stability. Many different profiles have been used by various investigators. However, if sodium profiling is not appropriately conducted, sodium accumulation with resulting augmented thirst, increase of interdialytic weight gain, and hypertension may result. Sodium accumulation may, in fact, explain the reduced intradialytic morbidity reported in some short-term sodium profiling studies. Randomized, double-blind studies meeting strict statistical criteria and providing a careful control to maintain equivalent sodium balances between the compared treatments are difficult to perform and have not yet been published. However, because sodium profiling has potential benefits, provided that sodium balance is carefully controlled, it should nevertheless be regarded as a tool that experienced nephrologists can use for the treatment of patients who experience intolerable side effects during standard dialysis.