The present study evaluated the presentations and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) and the impact of the Omicron BF.7 variant. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years), who underwent MHD (dialysis vintage ≥ 3 months) at the Hemodialysis Center at Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital between December 2022 and January 2023, were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. Clinical and laboratory characteristics were retrospectively collected. Among 131 patients who underwent MHD (10.7% vaccination rate), 106 (80.9%) tested positive for COVID-19. The prevalence of asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 was 8.5%, 58.5%, 17%, and 16%, respectively. Among the 97 patients with symptoms, 23 (23.7%) were hospitalized and six (5.7%) died. Fever was experienced by 74.2% of patients and respiratory symptoms were the most common (81.4%). Residual symptoms persisted in 20.9% of patients one month after the onset of COVID-19. COVID-19-positive hemodialysis patients were more likely to experience weight loss and exhibit reduced albumin levels compared to those without COVID-19 ( p < .05). Compared with the asymptomatic group, patients with symptoms were younger, and exhibited higher interleukin-6 levels and lower post-infection phosphate levels ( p < .05). Age, dialysis vintage, comorbidities, and inflammatory factors were positively associated with disease severity, while baseline albumin and hemoglobulin levels were associated with death ( p < .05). In conclusion, COVID-19 was prevalent among patients undergoing MHD, even during the Omicron variant epidemic. Age, nutritional status, comorbidities, and inflammatory factors were associated with disease severity and prognosis.

Background Short-term and long-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in hemodialysis (HD) population are risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality. There is no full consensus on the best BPV metric. We compared the prognostic role of intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics for CVD morbidity and all-cause mortality in HD patients. Methods A retrospective cohort of 120 patients on HD was followed up for 44 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and baseline characteristics were collected for 3 months. We calculated intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics, including standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), variability independent of the mean (VIM), average real variability (ARV) and residual. The primary outcomes were CVD events and all-cause mortality. Results In Cox regression analysis, both intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics were associated with increased CVD events (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28–2.27, p < 0.01; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12–2.16, p < 0.01). Intra-dialytic SD was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01–2.04, P = 0.04). Overall, intra-dialytic BPV showed greater prognostic ability than visit-to-visit BPV for both CVD event (AUC of intra-dialytic BPV and visit-to-visit BPV metrics respectively: SD 0.686, 0.606; CV 0.672, 0.425; VIM 0.677, 0.581; ARV 0.684, 0.618; residual 0.652, 0.586) and all-cause mortality (SD 0.671, 0.608; CV 0.662, 0.575; VIM 0.669, 0.581; ARV 0.529, 0.588; residual 0.651, 0.602). Conclusion Compared to visit-to-visit BPV, intra-dialytic BPV is a greater predictor of CVD event and all-cause mortality in HD patients. No obvious priority was found among various BPV metrics.

Background Short-term and long-term blood pressure variability (BPV) in hemodialysis (HD) population are risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and all-cause mortality. There is no full consensus on the best BPV metric. We compared the prognostic role of intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics for CVD morbidity and all-cause mortality in HD patients. Methods A retrospective cohort of 120 patients on HD was followed up for 44 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and baseline characteristics were collected for 3 months. We calculated intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics, including standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), variability independent of the mean (VIM), average real variability (ARV) and residual. The primary outcomes were CVD events and all-cause mortality. Results In Cox regression analysis, both intra-dialytic and visit-to-visit BPV metrics were associated with increased CVD events (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28–2.27, p < 0.01; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12–2.16, p < 0.01), but not associated with increased all-cause mortality (intra-dialytic CV: HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99–1.76, p = 0.06; visit-to-visit CV: HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91–1.63, p = 0.18). Overall, intra-dialytic BPV showed greater prognostic ability than visit-to-visit BPV for both CVD event (AUC of intra-dialytic BPV and visit-to-visit BPV metrics respectively: SD 0.686, 0.606; CV 0.672, 0.425; VIM 0.677, 0.581; ARV 0.684, 0.618; residual 0.652, 0.586) and all-cause mortality (SD 0.671, 0.608; CV 0.662, 0.575; VIM 0.669, 0.581; ARV 0.529, 0.588; residual 0.651, 0.602). Conclusion Compared to visit-to-visit BPV, intra-dialytic BPV is a greater predictor of CVD event in HD patients. No obvious priority was found among various BPV metrics.