Hemodynamic monitoring during hemodialysis.

Intradialytic monitoring of hemodynamic parameters is an active area of research; future developments in this field will decrease intradialytic morbidity and the mortality of end-stage renal disease patients treated by hemodialysis. Recent investigations have been assisted by the development of devices that can continuously and noninvasively measure hematocrit and plasma protein concentration during the treatment. Intradialytic morbidity, fluid overload, and hypertension in chronic hemodialysis patients have been shown to be associated with either large or small intradialytic decreases in blood or plasma volume that can be routinely measured by these devices. The use of intradialytic changes in blood volume as a feedback control parameter to vary the ultrafiltration rate and dialysate sodium concentration, so called profiling, is now possible, but further research in this area is necessary to show how to optimize the control algorithms. Other, more preliminary studies suggest that monitoring of central blood volume, extracellular volume, and cardiac output during hemodialysis may permit improved hemodynamic stability during treatment and better control of blood pressure. Although optimal application of these techniques and devices remains to be shown, their routine use during maintenance hemodialysis therapy will likely be the standard of care in the near future.     

Assessment of dry weight by monitoring changes in blood volume during hemodialysis using Crit-Line

BACKGROUND: Routine assessment of dry weight in chronic hemodialysis patients relies primarily on clinical evaluation of patient fluid status. We evaluated whether measurement of postdialytic vascular refill could assist in the assessment of dry weight. METHODS: Twenty-eight chronic, stable hemodialysis patients were studied during routine treatment sessions using constant dialysate temperature and dialysate sodium concentration, and relative changes in blood volume were monitored using Crit-Line III monitors throughout this study. The study was divided into three phases. Phase 1 studies evaluated the time-dependence of vascular compartment refill after completion of hemodialysis. Phase 2 studies evaluated the relationships in patient subgroups between intradialytic changes in blood volume and the presence of postdialytic vascular compartment refill during that last 10 minutes of hemodialysis after stopping ultrafiltration. Phase 3 studies evaluated the extent of dry weight changes following the application of a protocol for blood volume reduction, postdialytic vascular compartment refill, and correlation with clinical evidence of intradialytic hypovolemia and/or postdialytic fatigue. Phase 3 included anywhere from three to five treatments. RESULTS: Phase 1 studies demonstrated that despite interpatient variability in the magnitude of postdialytic vascular compartment refill, when significant refill was evident, it always continued for at least 30 minutes. However, the majority of refill took place within 10 minutes postdialysis. Phase 2 studies identified 3 groups of patients: those who exhibited intradialytic reductions in blood volume but not postdialytic vascular compartment refill (group 1), those who exhibited intradialytic reductions in blood volume and postdialytic vascular compartment refill (group 2), and those whose blood volume did not change substantially during hemodialysis treatment (group 3). In phase 3 studies, use of an ultrafiltration protocol for blood volume reduction and monitoring of postdialytic vascular compartment refill combined with clinical assessment of hypovolemia and postdialytic fatigue demonstrated that patients often had a clinical dry weight assessment which was too low or too high. In all 28 patients studied, dry weight was either increased or decreased following use of this protocol. CONCLUSION: Determination of the extent of both intradialytic decreases in blood volume and postdialytic vascular compartment refill, combined with clinical assessment of intradialytic hypovolemia and postdialytic fatigue, can help assess patient dry weight and optimize volume status while reducing dialysis associated morbidity. The number of hospital admissions due to fluid overload may be reduced.     

Relationship between volume status and blood pressure during chronic hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between volume status and blood pressure (BP) in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients remains incompletely understood. Specifically, the effect of interdialytic fluid accumulation (or intradialytic fluid removal) on BP is controversial. METHODS: We determined the association of the intradialytic decrease in body weight (as an indicator of interdialytic fluid gain) and the intradialytic decrease in plasma volume (as an indicator of postdialysis volume status) with predialysis and postdialysis BP in a cross-sectional analysis of a subset of patients (N=468) from the Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study. Fifty-five percent of patients were female, 62% were black, 43% were diabetic and 72% were prescribed antihypertensive medications. Dry weight was defined as the postdialysis body weight below which the patient developed symptomatic hypotension or muscle cramps in the absence of edema. The intradialytic decrease in plasma volume was calculated from predialysis and postdialysis total plasma protein concentrations and was expressed as a percentage of the plasma volume at the beginning of HD. RESULTS: Predialysis systolic and diastolic BP values were 153.1 +/- 24.7 (mean +/- SD) and 81.7 +/- 14.8 mm Hg, respectively; postdialysis systolic and diastolic BP values were 136.6 +/- 22.7 and 73.9 +/- 13.6 mm Hg, respectively. As a result of HD, body weight was reduced by 3.1 +/- 1.3 kg and plasma volume was contracted by 10.1 +/- 9.5%. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that each kg reduction in body weight during HD was associated with a 2.95 mm Hg (P=0.004) and a 1.65 mm Hg (P=NS) higher predialysis and postdialysis systolic BP, respectively. In contrast, each 5% greater contraction of plasma volume during HD was associated with a 1.50 mm Hg (P=0.026) and a 2.56 mm Hg (P < 0.001) lower predialysis and postdialysis systolic BP, respectively. The effects of intradialytic decreases in body weight and plasma volume were greater on systolic BP than on diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: HD treatment generally reduces BP, and these reductions in BP are associated with intradialytic decreases in both body weight and plasma volume. The absolute predialysis and postdialysis BP levels are influenced differently by acute intradialytic decreases in body weight and acute intradialytic decreases in plasma volume; these parameters provide different information regarding volume status and may be dissociated from each other. Therefore, evaluation of volume status in chronic HD patients requires, at minimum, assessments of both interdialytic fluid accumulation (or the intradialytic decrease in body weight) and postdialysis volume overload.     

Blood volume monitoring to achieve target weight in pediatric hemodialysis patients

Achieving dry weight during hemodialysis (HD) while minimizing symptoms is critical for optimizing patient outcome by preventing chronic fluid overload, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy. Dry weight changes frequently in children because of growth and development and waxing and waning of appetite. We have previously shown non-invasive hematocrit monitoring (NIVM) helps to decrease intradialytic symptoms, while still achieving target dry weights in children receiving chronic HD. In the current study, we prospectively evaluated an NIVM-guided ultrafiltration (UF) management algorithm to determine target dry weight in nine pediatric patients (mean age 16.6±2.8 years, mean weight 41.6±11.1 kg). Use of NIVM could potentially lead to overly aggressive UF with increased interdialytic symptoms, post treatment thirst, and interdialytic weight gain (IDWG). To evaluate the effectiveness of our NIVM UF algorithm, we studied the effect of three different NIVM-guided UF models (100%, 90%, and 80% UF models) on intradialytic and interdialytic symptoms, pre-/post-treatment blood pressure (BP), and percentage IDWG. To assess interdialytic symptoms, patients completed two questionnaires, one for each day between treatments. No statistically significant difference was seen between the three UF models with respect to intradialytic or interdialytic symptoms, pre-/post-HD BP, or percentage IDWG. Only one of nine patients received non-ACEI chronic antihypertensive medication, yet all patients had pre- and post-HD BP <95th percentile for age and height. The current study suggests that routine determination of target dry weight using NIVM and aiming for 100% UF helps to achieve the target dry weight, reduces both the risk of chronic fluid overload and the need for antihypertensive medication, and does not lead to increased intra- or interdialytic symptomatology in pediatric patients treated with chronic HD.     

The Choice of Dialysate Sodium is Influenced by Hemodialysis Frequency and Duration: What Should It Be and For What Modality?

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in hemodialysis patients. A chronic state of volume and pressure overload contributes, and central to this is the net sodium balance over the course of a hemodialysis. Of recent interest is the contribution of the dialysate sodium concentration (Dial‐Na+) to clinical outcomes. Abundant evidence confirms that in thrice‐weekly conventional hemodialysis, higher Dial‐Na+ associates with increased intradialytic weight gain, blood pressure, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, low Dial‐Na+ associates with intradialytic hypotension in the same patient population. However, the effect of Dial‐Na+ in short hours daily hemodialysis (SHD; often referred to as “quotidian” dialysis), or nocturnal dialysis (FHND) is less well studied. Increased frequency and duration of exposure to a diffusive sodium gradient modulate the way in which DPNa+ alters interdialytic weight gain, predialysis blood pressure, and intradialytic change in blood pressure. Furthermore, increased dialysis frequency appears to decrease the predialysis plasma sodium setpoint (SP), which is considered stable in conventional thrice‐weekly patients. This review discusses criteria to determine optimal Dial‐Na+ in conventional, SHD and FHND patients, and identifies areas for future research.     

Blood pressure reduction during hemodialysis correlates to intradialytic changes in plasma volume.

Blood pressure alterations during hemodialysis were related to changes in body fluid in 14 patients with chronic renal failure. Changes in plasma volume (PV) and extracellular volume (ECV) were calculated from determinations of fluid volumes before and after hemodialysis, using 125I-albumin and 51Cr EDTA respectively. Reduction in body water was estimated from body weight changes. Weight loss was 3.3 +/- 0.3 kg (range 1.8-6.0 kg). The relative reduction of fluid was greater in the ECV, 21.6 +/- 3.2%, compared to plasma volume, 6.9 +/- 1.8%. The reduction in systolic blood pressure was related to both absolute (r = 0.66, p less than 0.05) and relative PV reduction (r = 0.72, p less than 0.02). There was no correlation between blood pressure reduction and weight loss or ECV changes. Only minor alterations were found in diastolic blood pressure. Plasma volume maintenance relates to blood pressure changes. Plasma volume monitoring could be useful for improving intradialytic hemodynamic control.     

Metabolic Acidosis in Hemodialysis Patients: A Study of Prevalence and Factors Affecting Intradialytic Bicarbonate Gain

Abstract The correction of uremic acidosis is one of the goals of hemodialysis; however, despite acceptable hemodialysis protocols, metabolic acidosis remains a common problem. The prevalence of acidosis and significance of factors affecting bicarbonate flux during hemodialysis were studied. A cohort of 70 stable patients receiving high-efficiency hemodialysis for at least 4 months was studied prospectively over a 1-year period. Twenty patients (28%) had a mean predialysis serum bicarbonate of less than 21 mEq/L. The patients with or without metabolic acidosis had similar mean net ultrafiltration and percent ultrafiltration, but acidotic patients had a higher percent increase in bicarbonate during hemodialysis (35 ± 12 versus 27 ± 10 [p = 0.008]). The latter suggests an increased net daily acid gain in patients with metabolic acidosis (1.19 ± 0.32 mEq/kg versus 1.05 ± 0.35 mEq/kg [p = 0.04]). A review of factors affecting intradialytic bicarbonate gain showed that predialysis serum bicarbonate (diffusive gradient) was the most significant with a demonstrated linear relationship between these two variables (R² 0.51). The role of dialysance and blood flow, assessed together using percent urea reduction, was minor as was the effect of ultrafiltration. At our level of dialysis delivery, prevalence of metabolic acidosis is low, and dialysis-related factors do not contribute to the persistence of metabolic acidosis. Net daily acid gain was higher in acidotic patients and accounts for the long-term maintenance of metabolic acidosis. For individual dialysis treatments, the diffusive gradient is the most important determinant of bicarbonate gain, with only a minor role being demonstrated for percent urea reduction and ultrafiltration rate.     

Methods of assessment of volume status and intercompartmental fluid shifts in hemodialysis patients: implications in clinical practice

Determining dry weight and assessing extracellular fluid volume in hemodialysis (HD) patients is one of the greatest challenges to practicing nephrologists. The clinical examination has limited accuracy, so different strategies have been investigated to aid in this evaluation. Biochemical markers of volume overload (ANP, BNP, cGMP) are fraught with excessive variability and poor correlation with volume status. Inferior vena cava ultrasound is effective, but cumbersome and costly. Bioimpedance measurements of intra- and extracellular water have significant shortcomings when used as isolated measurements, but can be useful in following trends over time and have been shown to improve intradialytic symptoms and blood pressure control. Continuous blood volume monitoring is helpful in preventing intradialytic hypotension and may help identify patients who are volume overloaded and need increased ultrafiltration. In this review we discuss these different techniques and other developments in the evaluation of dry weight and volume status, which may enhance our ability to improve patient stability and well-being during HD sessions.     

Clinical Use of Profiled Hemodialysis

The new population on dialysis today consists mainly of high risk patients (the elderly, diabetics, etc.) with high cardiovascular scores, and such vascular pathology is the most important predisposing factor for the occurrence of a frequent intradialytic clinical complication, vascular instability syndrome, which covers a range of clinical problems. Recently a new dialysis technique, profiled hemodialysis (PHD), has been set up and proposed for routine use. PHD consists of the clinical use of preestablished individual dialysis profiles aimed at antagonizing the changes in intradialytic plasma osmolarity by continuous modulation of dialysate sodium concentration throughout the whole extracorporeal session. In particular, PHD aims at reducing the fall of plasma osmolarity in the first half of the session (when it is higher) by reducing the sodium removal rate through increasing its dialysate concentration while taking into account the desired individual sodium balance to be reached at the end of the session. In this work, we report clinical experience with PHD compared to standard hemodialysis with constant sodium dialysate (SHD) in terms of its efficacy to maintain a more stable intradialytic blood volume (BV) and more stable hemodynamics. The PHD used in this work has been implemented by a mathematical model for computing the individual dialysate sodium profile which we have recently validated (Ursino M, Colì L, La Manna G, Grilli Cicilioni M, Dalmastri V, Guidicissi A, Masotti P, Avanzolini G, Stefani S, Bonomini V. A simple mathematical model of intradialytic sodium kinetics: “in vivo” validation during hemodialysis with constant or variable sodium. Int J Artif Organs 1996; 19:393–403.). Eleven uremic patients affected by hypotension at the beginning of dialysis treatment were studied. Each patient first underwent an SHD treatment and 1 week later a PHD treatment. The 2 extracorporeal sessions (one on SHD and the other on PHD) were performed in each individual patient under identical operative conditions including the sodium mass removal by the end of the session and the ultrafiltration rate. The crit line and Doppler echocardiography were used to determine BV, cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV) throughout the sessions. The mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were simultaneously monitored. PHD was associated with a more stable intradialytic BV and more stable hemodynamics compared to SHD. The higher stability of BV and cardiac function (in terms of SV and CO maintenance) which was obtained above all in the first half of the PHD session was associated with a higher stability of the MBP and the HR. This resulted in an enhancement in cardiovascular tolerance to ultrafiltration throughout the session in all tested patients. In contrast, SHD in the same patients was characterized by early significant changes in BV and cardiovascular parameters resulting in a significant decrease of the MBP and a significant increase of the HR throughout the session and also 1 h after the end of dialysis. Our results indicate that PHD may represent an efficient approach for the treatment of patients suffering from intradialytic vascular instability. If long-term clinical practice confirms the efficacy of PHD in controlling dialysis intolerance symptoms, it will have great scope as a routine procedure.     

Generation of Nitrate During Dialysis as a Measure of Nitric Oxide Synthesis

Abstract: Nitric oxide (NO) is a recently identified mes senger, which influences the local regulation of blood flow and platelets as well as neuronal and inflammatory pathways. Disturbed NO information might be involved in the uremic syndrome and might also cause hypotension during dialysis. To clarify these issues, we analyzed plasma and dialysis fluid concentrations of nitrate, the stable NO metabolite, in 9 patients during hemodialysis. Plasma nitrate was raised at the onset of dialysis as compared with healthy subjects (83 ± 9 versus 26 ± 2 μ, mol/L). The plasma concentration decreased to 20 ± 2 μ, mol/L (p < 0.01) during the dialysis. The relative decrease was more pronounced than the relative reduction in creatinine, phosphate, and urea concentrations. A parallel decrease in nitrate was seen in effluent dialysis fluid (32 ± 4 to 14 ± 1 μ mol/L; p < 0.01). Calculations of the amount of nitrate coming to and from the dialyzer were performed in 7 of the 9 patients, and in 5 of the 7 patients, generation of nitrate within the dialyzer could be postulated. This might explain the paradoxical venodilation noted during hemodialysis.     

Improvement of Intradialytic Hypotension in Diabetic Hemodialysis Patients Using Vitamin E‐Bonded Polysulfone Membrane Dialyzers

Currently, there are no detailed reports on the effects of vitamin E‐bonded polysulfone (PS) membrane dialyzers on intradialytic hypotension (IDH) in diabetic hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study was designed to evaluate changes in intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) using “VPS‐HA” vitamin E‐bonded super high‐flux PS membrane dialyzers. The subjects were 62 diabetic HD patients whose intradialytic SBP fell by more than 20%. Group A comprised patients who required vasopressors to be able to continue treatment or who had to discontinue therapy due to their lowest intradialytic SBP being observed at 210 min (28 patients). Group B comprised patients who showed no symptoms and required no vasopressors but showed a gradual reduction in blood pressure, with the lowest intradialytic SBP seen at the end of dialysis (34 patients). The primary outcome was defined as the lowest intradialytic SBP after 3 months using VPS‐HA. Secondary outcomes included changes in the following: lowest intradialytic diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, pulse rate, plasma nitric oxide and peroxynitrite, serum albumin, and hemoglobin A1c. Group A's lowest intradialytic SBP had significantly improved at 3 months (128.0 ± 25.1 mm Hg vs. 117.1 ± 29.2 mm Hg; P = 0.017). Group B's lowest intradialytic SBP had significantly improved at 1 month (134.4 ± 13.2 mm Hg vs. 121.5 ± 25.8 mm Hg; P = 0.047) and 3 months (139.1 ± 20.9 mm Hg vs. 121.5 ± 25.8 mm Hg; P = 0.011). We conclude that VPS‐HA may improve IDH in diabetic HD patients.     

Blood volume control by biofeedback and dialysis-induced symptomatology. A short-term clinical study

In earlier studies, a reduction in intradialytic procedures was observed in patients with severe intradialytic hypotension symptomatology by the use of blood volume controlled biofeedback systems. However, few data are present on the use of biofeedback-controlled treatments in patients experiencing minor intradialytic symptoms. In the present study, 157 standard and 158 biofeedback-controlled treatments were compared during a 2-month period in 16 hemodialysis patients. Both the percentage of hypotensive episodes (6.3 +/- 11.3 vs. 15.8 +/- 18.3%; p < 0.05) as well as other intradialytic symptoms (cramps, nausea, headache, abdominal pain) (11.0 +/- 12.8 vs. 18.1 +/- 16.9%; p < 0.05) were significantly less during biofeedback-controlled treatments compared to standard dialysis treatments, despite a similar decline in relative blood volume (8.8 +/- 3.5 vs. 8.3 +/- 3.1%; p = n.s.). Interdialytic weight gain and intradialytic rise in plasma sodium levels were comparable. Concluding, in this short-term preliminary study, blood volume controlled biofeedback improved dialysis tolerance also in patients with minor intradialytic symptomatology.     

Readmissions related to antihypertensive medications used in chronic hemodialysis

Background: In hemodialysis, hypertension is treated by removing excess fluid and antihypertensive therapy. Commonly, the antihypertensives used to treat hypertension in earlier stages of kidney disease are continued as the patient progresses into end-stage renal disease and begins dialysis, without much evidence for benefit. Methods: This study is a single center, retrospective chart review that included hemodialysis patients admitted for congestive heart failure (CHF), fluid overload, or pulmonary edema as determined by ICD-9 code (428.x, 276.6, 518.4, 506.1). The primary objective was to determine if the number or class of antihypertensives used in the chronic hemodialysis population increased the number of readmissions related to CHF, fluid overload, or pulmonary edema. Patients were separated into two groups based on total number of antihypertensive medications, less than or equal to 2 medications for group 1 and greater than two medications for group 2. The primary endpoint was 30-day readmission for CHF, fluid overload, or pulmonary edema. Results: For the study period, 85 individual patient charts met inclusion criteria. Group 1 (n?=?44) experienced seven readmissions (16%) and group 2 (n?=?41) experienced eight readmissions (18%) (p?=?0.663). The most common antihypertensives at discharge were ACE inhibitors for group 1 (45%) and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers for group 2 (66%). No difference in systolic blood pressures before, during and after hemodialysis was found between groups. Conclusions: Antihypertensive medications continue to play an important role in the hemodialysis population. This study suggests that drug class and quantity of antihypertensives do not alter readmission rate in the setting of fluid overload.     

Ultrafiltration and Backfiltration during Hemodialysis

Abstract: Ultrafiltration is the pressure-driven process by which hemodialysis removes excess fluid from renal failure patients. Despite substantial improvements in hemodialysis technology, three significant problems related to ultrafiltration remain: ultrafiltration volume control, ultrafiltration rate control, and backfiltration. Ultrafiltration volume control is complicated by the effects of plasma protein adsorption, hematocrit, and coagulation parameters on membrane performance. Furthermore, previously developed equations relating the ultrafiltration rate and the transmembrane pressure are not applicable to high-flux dialyzers, high blood flow rates, and erythropoietin therapy. Regulation of the ultrafiltration rate to avoid hypotension, cramps and other intradialytic complications is complicated by inaccurate estimates of dry weight and patient-to-patient differences in vascular refilling rates. Continuous monitoring of circulating blood volume during hemodialysis may enable a better understanding of the role of blood volume in triggering intradialytic symptoms and allow determination of optimal ultrafiltration rate profiles for hemodialysis. Backfiltration can occur as a direct result of ultrafiltration control and results in transport of bacterial products from dialysate to blood. By examining these problems from an engineering perspective, the authors hope to clarify what can and cannot be prevented by understanding and manipulating the fluid dynamics of ultrafiltration.     

生物电阻抗矢量法评估血液透析合并高血压患者的容量负荷

目的应用生物电阻抗矢量法评估血液透析合并高血压患者的容量负荷,探讨高容量负荷状态对高血压患者预后的影响。方法研究对象来自南京医科大学附属明基医院透析前收缩压(6次透析治疗前平均收缩压值)>160 mmHg的血液透析患者。用生物电阻抗矢量法评估患者容量状态,并根据患者容量状态分为容量增加组和非容量增加组(包括容量正常和容量下降的患者)。比较两组患者临床资料、实验室指标、细胞内液比例(ICW)、细胞外液比例(ECW)、体细胞质量、瘦体重、干瘦体重及其占总体重的百分比、脂肪含量占总体重的百分比、阻抗/身高、容抗/身高、相位角、疾病指数的差异。采用Kaplan⁃Meier生存曲线比较两组患者生存率的差异。结果共51例血液透析合并高血压患者入选本研究,容量增加组19例,非容量增加组32例(容量正常27例,容量下降5例)。容量增加组患者的血白蛋白、前白蛋白、血红蛋白、血细胞比容、血磷较非容量增加组显著下降,淋巴细胞比例明显升高,组间比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。容量增加组的细胞外液比例、疾病指数显著高于非容量增加组(均P<0.01);相位角、阻抗/身高、容抗/身高显著低于非容量增加组(均P<0.01)。临床追踪20个月,容量增加组患者血压达标率(透析前收缩压<160 mmHg)低于非容量增加组(26.3%比43.8%),但差异无统计学意义。容量增加组患者全因死亡率高于非容量增加组(26.3%比15.6%),Kaplan⁃Meier生存曲线分析提示两组生存率的差异尚无统计学意义。结论容量负荷增加的血液透析合并高血压患者细胞外液增加明显,营养状态评估指标较非容量增加的高血压患者明显下降,而淋巴细胞比例升高,可能与患者微炎症状态有关。容量负荷增加的高血压患者血压更加难以控制,临床预后可能不及非容量增加的患者。     

Management of intradialytic hypertension: the ongoing challenge

There is no widely accepted definition of intradialytic hypertension. Arbitrary clinical definitions have included an increase in blood pressure during or immediately after hemodialysis, a rise in blood pressure during the second or third hour of dialysis, and an increase in blood pressure that is resistant to ultrafiltration. To date, no studies have evaluated the prevalence and prognostic importance of intradialytic hypertension. The pathogenesis of intradialytic hypertension is complex and is due in part to extracellular fluid volume expansion, increased cardiac output, activation of the renin-angiotensin system and the sympathetic nervous system, increased circulating vasoactive substances resulting in peripheral vasoconstriction, erythropoietin use, and fluctuations in electrolytes and removal of antihypertensive medications during the dialysis procedure. Management strategies of intradialytic hypertension are based on expert opinion using the pathophysiologic principles described above. We conclude that additional epidemiologic, basic science, and interventional studies are needed to further elucidate the prevalence, prognostic importance, pathophysiology, and potential treatment of intradialytic hypertension.     

Heart rate variability is an indicator for intradialytic hypotension among chronic hemodialysis patients

Background

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) carries adverse impact. Heart rate variability (HRV) represents autonomic cardiac regulation which influences intradialytic blood pressure. We aimed to evaluate the association between IDH and HRV.

Methods

This prospective study was carried out in a teaching hospital in Taiwan from June to August 2010. Adult patients on chronic hemodialysis without active medical conditions were enrolled and received HRV measurements for 4 times (before and during an index hemodialysis session). Patients were categorized by the changes of systolic blood pressure during the index hemodialysis into Group 1 (elevation >20 mmHg), Group 2 (decrease >20 mmHg), and Group 3 (others). Then we compared HRV indices among the three groups, and determined the indicators for IDH.

Results

One hundred and seventy-one patients (96 women, mean age 64.9 years) were enrolled and categorized into Group 1 (n = 47, 27.5 %), Group 2 (n = 45, 26.3 %) and Group 3 (n = 79, 46.2 %). Comparing with Group 1 and/or Group 3, Group 2 had significantly higher blood pressure at hemodialysis initiation (most p < 0.001) and statistically lower levels of HRV indices including variance, total power, very low-frequency, low-frequency and high-frequency since the middle phase of the hemodialysis. By logistic regression method, higher systemic blood pressure [odds ratio (OR) 1.048; p < 0.001], heart rate (OR 1.093; p = 0.021), low-frequency/high-frequency ratio (OR 1.715; p = 0.022), as well as lower variance (OR 0.639; p = 0.048) at hemodialysis initiation were independently associated with intradialytic blood pressure changes.

Conclusions

HRV is a useful indicator for IDH among hemodialysis patients.