dialysate sodium
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

163
(FIVE YEARS 42)

H-INDEX

22
(FIVE YEARS 2)

Author(s):  
Mariana Sousa ◽  
◽  
Cristina Santos ◽  
Susana Colaço ◽  
José Santos ◽  
...  

Dialysate sodium prescription is often standardized. In some patients, this can be hypernatremic compared to serum sodium, causing a positive sodium balance at the end of treatment that will contribute to increased extracellular volume and interdialytic weight gain. A prospective study was carried out to monitor and compare the clinical implications between different prescriptions of sodium dialysate (isonatremic versus hyponatremic hemodialysis). For that purpose, we included hemodialysis patients in treatment for at least 9 months. The individual sodium setpoint was determined through the median of pre-dialysis sodium measurements, carried out for 6 treatments. The prescribed dialysate sodium was equal to the setpoint (isonatremic period) for 4 weeks and then 2 meq/L inferior to the setpoint (hyponatremic period) for another 4 weeks. The main outcome was interdialytic weight gain. Secondary outcomes were ultrafiltration rate, blood pressure at the beginning of treatment, intradialytic complications, and qualitative assessment of symptoms. Twenty patients were included. Pre-dialysis serum sodium assessments in both periods tended to be patient specific with a stable value. The interdialytic weight gain was lower in the hyponatremic period (1.83±0.50 kg versus 2.04±0.58 kg) but without statistical significance (p value=0.387). The same trend was found in mean ultrafiltration and blood pressure. Dialysis complications were low in both periods. The percentage of cramps and hypotension requiring intervention was higher in the hyponatremic period with no statistically significant differences. Concerning thirst, there was a symptomatic improvement with sodium customization. This improvement was even more significant in the hyponatremic period. This study allowed us to reinforce the existence of a “sodium setpoint” for each patient and the importance of an individualized dialysis prescription. Our results suggest the safety of using isonatremic hemodialysis with improving patients’ symptoms. Regarding hyponatremic hemodialysis, despite being beneficial, it seemed to be associated with a higher number of complications.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Salvador López-Gil ◽  
Magdalena Madero

Based on our experience in our hemodiafiltration unit we would recommend a personalized isonatremic dialysate bath. We currently prescribe 137 meq (isonatremic) or delta dialysate Na/serum Na less than 2 meq. In addition to the sodium prescribed in the dialysate, for the majority of our patients we do not restrict dietary sodium or water intake. The average sodium intake is 2775 mg per day and blood pressure is maintained without hypertensive medications. We acknowledge that part of the success for achieving dry weight may not be attributable only to the dialysate sodium but is likely the result of a combination of multiple factors such as convection therapy, cooling of dialysate, close monitoring of volume status during sessions with relative blood volume, presence of a nephrologist during all sessions and assessing volume status regularly with lung ultrasound and bioimpedance. In our experience, exercising during hemodialysis has additionally been associated with better hemodynamic status and less intradialytic hypotension. Moreover, we acknowledge there is little evidence to support a gradient dialysate to serum sodium of less than 2 meq and that our approach may not be optimal.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Friedrich K. Port

Low sodium dialysate was commonly used in the early year of hemodialysis to enhance diffusive sodium removal beyond its convective removal by ultrafiltration. However, disequilibrium syndrome was common, particularly when dialysis sessions were reduced to 4 h. The recent trend of lowering the DNa from the most common level of 140 mEq/L has been associated with intradialytic hypotension and increased risk of hospitalization and mortality. Higher DNa also has disadvantages, such as higher blood pressure and greater interdialytic weight gain, likely due to increased thirst. My assessment of the evidence leads me to choose DNa at the 140 level for most patients and to avoid DNa below 138. Patients with intradialytic symptoms may benefit from DNa 142 mEq/L, if they can avoid excessive fluid weight gains.


Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Claudia Lerma ◽  
Nadia Saavedra-Fuentes ◽  
Jasbeth Ledesma-Gil ◽  
Martín Calderón-Juárez ◽  
Héctor Pérez-Grovas ◽  
...  

Ocular complications are common among end-stage renal disease patients and some complications had been linked to increments of intraocular pressure (IOP) during hemodialysis. The changes of IOP during hemodiafiltration (HDF) have been scarcely investigated and the potential influence of the sodium dialysate concentration is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the IOP changes during HDF with sodium dialysate concentration, either fixed or individualized. Thirteen end-stage renal disease patients participated in the study; they were treated with HDF using a dialysate sodium profile fixed at 138 mmol and another session with an individualized sodium profile. The intraocular pressure was measured before and after each session and every 30 min during HDF. Both groups had a similar HDF prescription, blood pressure, and biochemical parameters. At the end of hemodiafiltration, sodium concentration decreased only in the fixed sodium profile group. The number of patients with at least an episode of intraocular hypertension during HDF ranged from 5 (19%) to 8 (31%) without significant differences between right and left eye nor between dialysate sodium concentration. During HDF, there is a large variability of IOP; transient events of intraocular hypertension are highly prevalent in this sample, and they are not related to the sodium dialysate concentration.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-163
Author(s):  
Jingjing Zhang

The optimal dialysate sodium concentration for chronic hemodialysis patients remains controversial. Conflicting data from small observational studies and large cohort study data have not convinced nephrologists to choose either a high or low sodium dialysate. Despite a lack of evidence, I would prescribe individualized dialysate sodium concentrations for patients with a risk of hypertension or volume overload, aligning the dialysate sodium concentration with patients’ predialysis serum sodium level. The concentration of dialysate sodium would usually be 0–2 mEq/L below the patient’s serum sodium concentration. I believe that this strategy would help improve hypertension, intradialytic weight gain, cardiac outcomes, and deliver precision medicine.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-160
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Lindley ◽  
James Tattersall

In haemodialysis, sodium and fluid balance (where intake matches loss) is achieved by ultrafiltration and by diffusion between the plasma water and dialysate. If a patient’s sodium intake does not change, any reduction in fluid gain obtained by lowering dialysate sodium concentration will result in less sodium removal by ultrafiltration. The corresponding change in diffusion to achieve balance may mean the benefit of lower fluid gain is offset by morbidity caused by a fall in serum sodium during dialysis. The standard dialysate sodium should minimise harm caused by both high ultrafiltration rates and osmotic disequilibrium. For most units, this is likely to be 138 to 140 mmol/L.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-153
Author(s):  
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal

The principal aim of dialysis in relation to sodium is that dialysate sodium should not be low enough to cause intradialytic hypotension and cramps, and should not be high enough to cause interdialytic weight gain and hypertension. Dialysis sodium at 138 meq/L is supposed to be neutral and for most patients, this remains the standard sodium level for regular long-term dialysis. In my opinion, sodium should be changed temporarily from this level to 142 meq/L in selected patients only for a few dialysis sessions, where the cause of intradialytic hypotension is not obvious. In patients who regularly go into intradialytic hypotension and whose cause of intradialytic hypotension is unclear or cannot be corrected, sodium profiling should be used for maintenance dialysis. There is no consensus on the level of sodium, although I think 142 meq/L for the initial hour followed by a decrease to 138 meq/L in the last hour is sensible.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-156
Author(s):  
Khai Ping Ng ◽  
Indranil Dasgupta

With advances in hemodialysis technology and the desire to achieve cardiovascular stability during dialysis, prescribed dialysate sodium concentration has gradually increased over the years. Short-term trials suggest low dialysate sodium (<138 mEq/L) is beneficial in reducing interdialytic weight gain, pre- and post-dialysis BP, and predialysis serum sodium; but it increases intradialytic hypotensive episodes. We believe dialysate sodium prescription cannot be considered in isolation. Our approach is to use patient symptoms, meticulous fluid volume management and low temperature dialysate in conjunction with neutral dialysate sodium in managing our dialysis patients. Long-term trials are needed to inform optimum dialysate sodium prescription.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-151
Author(s):  
Bernard Canaud

Restoring sodium and fluid homeostasis in hemodialysis (HD) patients is a crucial aim to reduce cardiovascular burden and improve global outcome. This crucial target is achieved at maximum in one quarter of HD patients according to a recent study. Sodium and fluid balance relies on a multitarget approach involving dietary salt restriction, dialysis salt mass removal and eventually residual kidney function. Salt mass removal in hemodialysis relies on ultrafiltration (convective sodium), the dialysate–plasma sodium gradient (diffusive sodium) and total treatment time. Manual dialysate sodium prescription has three major aims: dialysate–plasma sodium gradient; sodium mass removal target; hemodialysis tolerance and patient risks. In the future, automated dialysate sodium adjustment by HD machine will facilitate this aim.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-148
Author(s):  
Hugh C. Rayner

The best evidence available to guide a policy for prescribing the dialysate sodium concentration, [DNa], comes from large randomly selected observational studies, such as the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). These show that, after adjustment for differences in demographics and comorbidity, using a [DNa] lower than 140 mEq/L is associated with patients taking longer to recover after a dialysis treatment, worse symptoms of kidney failure, a higher score for the burden of kidney disease and worse mental and physical health-related quality of life. It is also associated with greater risks of being admitted to hospital and dying. These outcomes are more important than any medically determined surrogate outcome, such as the control of blood pressure or interdialytic weight gain. The most appropriate policy for prescribing the dialysate sodium concentration is to use a [DNa] of 140 mEq/L for the majority of patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document