Key result
Step and linear dialysate sodium profiles significantly reduced the frequency of intradialytic adverse effects compared to steady sodium control (33.7% and 36.0% vs 48.5%, respectively; P < 0.001).
Why the study?
Does sodium profiling reduce intradialytic adverse effects in stable hemodialysis patients?
RCT (n=22)
randomized crossover
Does sodium profiling reduce intradialytic adverse effects in stable hemodialysis patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 33.7% vs 48.5%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Both step and linear sodium profiling reduce the frequency of intradialytic adverse effects like hypotension and cramps in hemodialysis patients, though individual evaluation is necessary.
Sodium profiling warrants consideration to reduce intradialytic adverse effects in stable hemodialysis; confirms RCT superiority of step/linear over steady profiles.
Intradialytic symptomatic hypotension and muscle cramps are frequent and disturbing adverse effects involving hemodialysis patients. The use of sodium profiling has been a proposed approach to preclude such events. The aim of the study was to compare the frequency of intradialytic adverse effects and changes in anthropometric and physiological variables without profiling and with two distinct sodium profiles. A prospective study randomized 22 stable hemodialysis patients to receive either a step (11 patients) or a linear (11 patients) dialysate sodium profile for 12 consecutive sessions, following a 12-session steady sodium control period. After a wash-out period of 12 sessions, the groups were crossed over for another 12-session period. Frequency of adverse effects, interdialytic weight gain, pre- and post-dialysis blood pressure were computed. The frequency of intradialytic adverse effects was significantly different between the control and either the step or linear periods (48.5%, 33.7%, and 36.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences in interdialytic weight gain or pre-dialysis blood pressure were detected between treatment periods. The mean post-dialysis systolic blood pressure was lower in the linear period (128 +/- 21; 127 +/- 20; 123 +/- 22 mm Hg, for the control, step and linear periods, respectively; P = 0.014). Seven patients benefited from sodium profiling, yet two became more symptomatic. Overall, both sodium profiles were associated with fewer intradialytic adverse effects. Intradialytic symptomatic hypotension occurred less often with the step profile, while a tendency to fewer cramps was associated with the linear profile. However, sodium profiling may not benefit every dialysis patient and should be individually evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meira et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in stable hemodialysis patients (n=22). Step or linear dialysate sodium profile vs. Steady sodium control was evaluated on Frequency of intradialytic adverse effects (p=< 0.001). Step and linear dialysate sodium profiles significantly reduced the frequency of intradialytic adverse effects compared to steady sodium control (33.7% and 36.0% vs 48.5%, respectively; P < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: