Background and objectives Lowering the dialysate temperature may improve outcomes for patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. We reviewed the reported benefits and harms of lower temperature dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurements We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Pubmed until April 15, 2015. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included all randomized, controlled trials that evaluated the effect of reduced temperature dialysis versus standard temperature dialysis in adult patients receiving chronic hemodialysis. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess confidence in the estimates of effect (i.e., the quality of evidence). We conducted meta-analyses using random effects models.Results Twenty-six trials were included, consisting of a total of 484 patients. Compared with standard temperature dialysis, reduced temperature dialysis significantly reduced the rate of intradialytic hypotension by 70% (95% confidence interval, 49% to 89%) and significantly increased intradialytic mean arterial pressure by 12 mmHg (95% confidence interval, 8 to 16 mmHg). Symptoms of discomfort occurred 2.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 9.82) times more often with reduced temperature compared with standard temperature dialysis. The effect on dialysis adequacy was not significantly different, with a Kt/V mean difference of 20.05 (95% confidence interval, 20.09 to 0.01). Small sample sizes, loss to follow-up, and a lack of appropriate blinding in some trials reduced confidence in the estimates of effect. None of the trials reported long-term outcomes.Conclusions In patients receiving chronic hemodialysis, reduced temperature dialysis may reduce the rate of intradialytic hypotension and increase intradialytic mean arterial pressure. High-quality, large, multicenter, randomized trials are needed to determine whether reduced temperature dialysis affects patient mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events.

No abstract

Loin pain hematuria syndrome (LPHS), first described in 1967, is a rare pain syndrome, which is not well understood. The syndrome is characterized by severe intermittent or persistent flank pain, either unilateral or bilateral, associated with gross or microscopic hematuria. LPHS is a diagnosis of exclusion as there still is not a consensus of validated diagnostic criteria, though several criteria have been proposed. The wide differential diagnosis would suggest a meticulous yet specific diagnostic work-up depending on the individual clinical features and natural history. Several mechanisms regarding the pathophysiology of LPHS have been proposed but without pinpointing the actual causative etiology, the treatment remains symptomatic. Treatment modalities for LPHS are diverse including simple analgesia, opioid analgesic and kidney autotransplantation. This review article summarizes the current understanding regarding the pathophysiology of LPHS along with the steps required for proper diagnosis and a discussion of the different therapeutic approaches for LPHS.

Hemolytic uremic syndrome is the triad of nonimmune microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and acute renal failure. When not associated with enteric infection, it is classified as atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) and carries a worse outcome with high mortality rate and up to 50% of the survivors will end up with end-stage renal disease. Renal transplant was restricted to a very small percentage of patients due to high recurrence rate posttransplant that approaches 90%. Our case describes a posttransplant adult patient with familial aHUS whom was successfully treated with eculizumab. We also reviewed all other reported cases of adult posttransplant aHUS, both familial and sporadic, which were treated with eculizumab. In summary, eculizumab might expand the utility of renal transplant for patients with end-stage renal disease due to aHUS.