No abstract

Background/Aims: Hemodialysis (HD) patients often show impaired response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Extended HD membrane permeability may potentially improve ESA response. Methods: Twenty-four prevalent HD patients were randomly assigned to 12 weeks use of high cut-off (HCO) membrane (in every second dialysis treatment) or continued treatment with high-flux membrane. We monitored changes in hemoglobin (Hb), ESA dose, and key biochemical markers. Results: The Hb level increased in the study group (from 11.6 ± 1.0 to 12.5 ± 1.5 g/dl; p = 0.038) but was stable in the control group. Variation over time in ESA dose and ESA resistance index did not differ between groups. HCO membrane usage for 12 weeks led to decreased hepcidin level, from 303 ± 189 to 157 ± 83 ng/ml (p = 0.024); serum albumin level decreased and stabilized 15 ± 6% below baseline. Conclusions: These results indicate that use of a more permeable dialysis membrane may improve ESA responsiveness in iron-replete HD patients. Extensive albumin removal may preclude long-term use of the HCO membrane.

Background. Several factors are involved in the pathogenesis of dialysis discomfort interfering with optimal fluid removal and reducing the efficacy of the treatment; the most important one is a decrease in blood volume caused by an imbalance between ultrafiltration (UF) and plasma refilling (PR) rates. Objectives. This study is aimed at devising a method to tailor the dialysis therapy to each individual patient, by analyzing the relationship between PR and UF during the sessions in stable patients and widening the knowledge of fluid exchanges during the treatment. Methods. Thirty stable patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis were enrolled. Three dialysis sessions were monitored for each patient; systemic pressure, blood composition, blood volume % variation, weight loss and conductivity were recorded repeatedly. A Plasma Refilling Index (PRI), defined and calculated by means of parameters measured throughout the dialysis, was introduced as a novel instrument to study plasma refilling phenomena. Results. The PRI provides understanding of patient response (in terms of plasma refilling) to the set UF. In the monitored sessions, the PRI trend is found to be characteristic of each patient; a PRI course that is at variance with the characteristic trend is a signal of inadequate or unusual dialysis scheduling. Moreover, statistical analysis highlights two different PRI trends during the first hour and during the rest of the treatment, suggesting the presence of different treatment phases. Conclusion. The main advantage of the PRI index is that it is non-invasive peculiar to each patient and easy to compute in a dialysis routine based on online data recorded by the monitor. A deviation from the characteristic trend may be a warning for the clinician. The analysis of the PRI trend also suggests how to modulate UF as a function of interstitial to intravascular fluid removal balance during dialysis.

Background and objectivesRenin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with CKD. We evaluated the cardioprotective effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn this phase 3, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, parallel, multicenter trial, we recruited patients on maintenance hemodialysis with hypertension and/or left ventricular hypertrophy from 28 Italian centers. Between July 2009 and February 2014, 140 participants were randomized to ramipril (1.25–10 mg/d) and 129 participants were allocated to non-RAS inhibition therapy, both titrated up to the maximally tolerated dose to achieve predefined target BP values. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the single components of the primary end point, new-onset or recurrence of atrial fibrillation, hospitalizations for symptomatic fluid overload, thrombosis or stenosis of the arteriovenous fistula, and changes in cardiac mass index. All outcomes were evaluated up to 42 months after randomization.ResultsAt comparable BP control, 23 participants on ramipril (16%) and 24 on non-RAS inhibitor therapy (19%) reached the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.64; P=0.80). Ramipril reduced cardiac mass index at 1 year of follow-up (between-group difference in change from baseline: −16.3 g/m2; 95% confidence interval, −29.4 to −3.1), but did not significantly affect the other secondary outcomes. Hypotensive episodes were more frequent in participants allocated to ramipril than controls (41% versus 12%). Twenty participants on ramipril and nine controls developed cancer, including six gastrointestinal malignancies on ramipril (four were fatal), compared with none in controls.ConclusionsRamipril did not reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:ARCADIA, NCT00985322 and European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database number 2008–003529–17.

Background: Postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) still remains the gold standard for solute removal, but with high hemoglobin levels transmembrane pressure (TMP) may reach high levels, reducing filter performance. We compared three online postdilution HDF treatments without TMP alarms for convective volume and plasma changes following treatment. Methods: Twelve patients were enrolled in a trial with three online postdilution HDF treatments. In the volume-controlled mode (VOLc), we set the exchanged volume to obtain a filtration fraction close to 25% without TMP alarms. In the pressure-controlled mode (TMPc), we set the TMP at 100 mm Hg. In the ULTRAc mode (TMP scan combined with TMPc), the dialysis machine automatically selects the TMP with a scan. All treatments were performed with an AK200 ULTRA-S system. Results: Even with hemoglobin levels >12 g/dl, we found a 57% rise in ultrafiltration rate in TMPc versus VOLc and a 92% rise in ULTRAc versus VOLc. Phosphates and myoglobin levels were significantly affected by treatment type. Conclusions: ULTRAc may be a useful tool to achieve an excellent purification performance without the constraints associated with the risk of hemoconcentration.