Background Knowledge of arrhythmias in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is mainly based on ambulatory electrocardiography (ECG) studies and observations during haemodialysis. We used insertable cardiac monitors to define the prevalence of arrhythmias, focusing on bradyarrhythmias, in ESRD patients treated with several dialysis modes including home therapies. Moreover, we assessed whether these arrhythmias were detected in baseline or ambulatory ECG recordings. Methods Seventy-one patients with a subcutaneously insertable cardiac monitor were followed for up to three years. Asystole (≥4.0 secs) and bradycardia (heart rate <30 bpm for ≥4 beats) episodes, ventricular tachyarrhythmias and atrial fibrillation were collected and verified visually. A baseline ECG and a 24-48-hour ambulatory ECG were recorded at recruitment and once a year thereafter. Results At recruitment, forty-four patients were treated in in-center haemodialysis, 12 in home haemodialysis and 15 in peritoneal dialysis. During a median follow-up of 34.4 months, 18 (25.4%) patients had either an asystolic or a bradycardic episode. The median length of each patient’s longest asystole was 6.6 seconds and that of a bradycardia 13.5 seconds. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were detected in 16 (23%) patients, and atrial fibrillation in 34 (51%) patients. In-center haemodialysis and type II diabetes were significantly more frequent among those with bradyarrhythmias whereas no bradyarrhythmias were found in home haemodialysis. No bradyarrhythmias were evident in baseline or ambulatory ECG recordings. Conclusions Remarkably many patients with ESRD had bradycardia or asystolic episodes, but these arrhythmias were not detected by baseline or ambulatory ECG.

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.

No abstract

No abstract