-
Peritoneal Dialysis International :... May 2021The objectives of this study were to provide a summary of the pharmacokinetic data of some intraperitoneal (IP) antibiotics that could be used for both empirical and...
The objectives of this study were to provide a summary of the pharmacokinetic data of some intraperitoneal (IP) antibiotics that could be used for both empirical and culture-directed therapy, as per the ISPD recommendations, and examine factors to consider when using IP antibiotics for the management of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD)-associated peritonitis. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, MEDLINE and Google Scholar for articles published between 1998 and 2020 was conducted. To be eligible, articles had to describe the use of antibiotics via the IP route in adult patients ≥18 years old on APD in the context of pharmacokinetic studies or case reports/series. Articles describing the use of IP antibiotics that had been recently reviewed (cefazolin, vancomycin, gentamicin and ceftazidime) or administered for non-APD-associated peritonitis were excluded. A total of 1119 articles were identified, of which 983 abstracts were screened. Seventy-three full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight records were included in the final study. Three reports had pharmacokinetic data in patients on APD without peritonitis. Each of cefepime 15 mg/kg IP, meropenem 0.5 g IP and fosfomycin 4 g IP given in single doses achieved drug plasma concentrations above the minimum inhibitory concentration for treating the susceptible organisms. The remaining five records were case series or reports in patients on APD with peritonitis. While pharmacokinetic data support intermittent cefepime 15 mg/kg IP daily, only meropenem 0.5 g IP and fosfomycin 4 g IP are likely to be effective if given in APD exchanges with dwell times of 15 h. Higher doses may be required in APD with shorter dwell times. Information on therapeutic efficacy was derived from case reports/series in individual patients and without therapeutic drug monitoring. Until more pharmacokinetic data are available on these antibiotics, it would be prudent to shift patients who develop peritonitis on APD to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, where pharmacokinetic information is more readily available.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory; Peritonitis
PubMed: 33559525
DOI: 10.1177/0896860821990528 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Mar 2021Dialysate sodium (DNa) prescription policy differs between haemodialysis (HD) units, and the optimal DNa remains uncertain. We sought to summarize the evidence on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dialysate sodium (DNa) prescription policy differs between haemodialysis (HD) units, and the optimal DNa remains uncertain. We sought to summarize the evidence on the agreement between prescribed and delivered DNa, and whether the relationship varied according to prescribed DNa.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and PubMed from inception to 26 February 2020 for studies reporting measured and prescribed DNa. We analysed results reported in aggregate with random-effects meta-analysis. We analysed results reported by individual sample, using mixed-effects Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses included method of sodium measurement, dialysis machine manufacturer and proportioning method.
RESULTS
Seven studies, representing 908 dialysate samples from 10 HD facilities (range 16-133 samples), were identified. All but one were single-centre studies. Studies were of low to moderate quality. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between measured and prescribed DNa {mean difference = 0.73 mmol/L [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 2.58; P = 0.44]} but variability across studies was substantial (I2 = 99.3%). Among individually reported samples (n = 295), measured DNa was higher than prescribed DNa by 1.96 mmol/L (95% CI 0.23-3.69) and the 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.97 to 7.88 mmol/L. Regression analysis confirmed a strong relationship between prescribed and measured DNa, with a slope close to 1:1 (β = 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
A limited number of studies suggest that, on average, prescribed and measured DNa are similar. However, between- and within-study differences were large. Further consideration of the precision of delivered DNa is required to inform rational prescribing.
Topics: Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Prescriptions; Renal Dialysis; Sodium
PubMed: 33367715
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfaa287 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis initiation for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring urgent dialysis without established permanent dialysis access. Recently, several small studies have reported comparable patient outcomes between urgent-start and conventional-start PD.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD (within 2 weeks of catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD ( ≥ 2 weeks of catheter insertion) treatment in children and adults CKD patients requiring long-term dialysis were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted and quality of studies were examined by two independent authors. The authors contacted investigators for additional information. Summary estimates of effect were examined using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate for the data. The certainty of evidence for individual outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (2953 participants) were included in this review, which included one multicentre RCT (122 participants) and 15 non-RCTs (2831 participants): 13 cohort studies (2671 participants) and 2 case-control studies (160 participants). The review included unadjusted data for analyses due to paucity of studies reporting adjusted data. In low certainty evidence, urgent-start PD may increase dialysate leak (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.78) compared with conventional-start PD which translated into an absolute number of 210 more leaks per 1000 (95% CI 40 to 635). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases catheter blockage (4 cohort studies, 1214 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.43; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.13), catheter malposition (6 cohort studies, 1353 participants: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.32; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 13.96), and PD dialysate flow problems (3 cohort studies, 937 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.14) compared to conventional-start PD. In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases exit-site infection (2 cohort studies, 337 participants: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.61; 1 case-control study, 104 participants RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50), exit-site bleeding (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.03 to 16.81; 1 cohort study, 27 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.32), peritonitis (7 cohort studies, 1497 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46; 2 case-control studies, participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.51), catheter readjustment (2 cohort studies, 739 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.02), or reduces technique survival (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20; 8 cohort studies, 1668 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD increased death (any cause) (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53; 7 cohort studies, 1509 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.3; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.02; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on tunnel tract infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with CKD who require dialysis urgently without ready-to-use dialysis access in place, urgent-start PD may increase the risk of dialysate leak and has uncertain effects on catheter blockage, malposition or readjustment, PD dialysate flow problems, infectious complications, exit-site bleeding, technique survival, and patient survival compared with conventional-start PD.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Catheter Obstruction; Catheter-Related Infections; Cohort Studies; Dialysis Solutions; Emergency Treatment; Hemorrhage; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33320346
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012913.pub2 -
Pediatric Nephrology (Berlin, Germany) May 2021There are similarities in hemodialysis (HD) between adults and children and also unique pediatric aspects. In this systematic review, we evaluated the existing HD...
BACKGROUND
There are similarities in hemodialysis (HD) between adults and children and also unique pediatric aspects. In this systematic review, we evaluated the existing HD literature, including vascular access, indications, parameters, and outcomes as a reflection on real-life HD practices.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for literature on HD in children (1-20 years). Two reviewers independently assessed the literature and data on indications; vascular access, outcomes, and specific parameters for HD were extracted.
RESULTS
Fifty-four studies (8751 patients) were included in this review. Studies were stratified into age groups 1-5, 6-12, and 13-20 years based on median/mean age reported in the study, as well as era of publication (1990-2000, 2001-2010, and 2011-2019). Across all age groups, both arteriovenous fistulas and central venous catheters were utilized for vascular access. Congenital abnormalities and glomerulopathy were the most common HD indications. HD parameters including HD session duration, dialysate and blood flow rates, urea reduction ratio, and ultrafiltration were characterized for each age group, as well as common complications including catheter dysfunction and intradialytic hypotension. Median mortality rates were 23.3% (3.3), 7.6% (14.5), and 2.0% (3.0) in ages 1-5, 6-12, and 13-20 years, respectively. Median transplantation rates were 41.6% (38.3), 52.0% (32.0), and 21% (25.6) in ages 1-5, 6-12, and 13-20, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This comprehensive systematic review summarizes available literature on HD in children and young adults, including best vascular access, indications, technical aspects, and outcomes, and reflects on HD practices over the last three decades.
Topics: Central Venous Catheters; Child; Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Hypotension; Infant; Kidney Diseases; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Renal Dialysis; Young Adult
PubMed: 33188608
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-020-04821-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of...
Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them.
SEARCH METHODS
Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Nose; Occupational Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 32936948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013627.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Birth Rate; Dialysis Solutions; Female; Gels; Glucocorticoids; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Icodextrin; Infertility, Female; Pelvic Pain; Plasma Substitutes; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Second-Look Surgery; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 32683695
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub5 -
Kidney & Blood Pressure Research 2020The etiology of acute metabolic acidosis (aMA) is heterogeneous, and the consequences are potentially life-threatening. The aim of this article was to summarize the...
BACKGROUND
The etiology of acute metabolic acidosis (aMA) is heterogeneous, and the consequences are potentially life-threatening. The aim of this article was to summarize the causes and management of aMA from a clinician's perspective.
SUMMARY
We performed a systematic search on PubMed, applying the following search terms: "acute metabolic acidosis," "lactic acidosis," "metformin" AND "acidosis," "unbalanced solutions" AND "acidosis," "bicarbonate" AND "acidosis" AND "outcome," "acute metabolic acidosis" AND "management," and "acute metabolic acidosis" AND "renal replacement therapy (RRT)/dialysis." The literature search did not consider diabetic ketoacidosis at all. Lactic acidosis evolves from various conditions, either with or without systemic hypoxia. The incidence of metformin-associated aMA is actually quite low. Unbalanced electrolyte preparations can induce hyperchloremic aMA. The latter potentially worsens kidney-related outcome parameters. Nevertheless, prospective and controlled data are missing at the moment. Recently, bicarbonate has been shown to improve clinically relevant endpoints in the critically ill, even if higher pH values (>7.3) are targeted. New therapeutics for aMA control are under development, since bicarbonate treatment can induce serious side effects. Key Messages: aMA is a frequent and potentially life-threatening complication of various conditions. Lactic acidosis might occur even in the absence of systemic hypoxia. The incidence of metformin-associated aMA is comparably low. Unbalanced electrolyte solutions induce hyperchloremic aMA, which most likely worsens the renal prognosis of critically ill patients. Bicarbonate, although potentially deleterious due to increased carbon dioxide production with subsequent intracellular acidosis, improves kidney-related endpoints in the critically ill.
Topics: Acidosis; Acidosis, Lactic; Acute Disease; Animals; Bicarbonates; Disease Management; Electrolytes; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin
PubMed: 32663831
DOI: 10.1159/000507813 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2020Fluid overload and hypertension frequently results in cardiovascular disease, which is one of the leading causes of death in dialysis patients. It is plausible that low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIM
Fluid overload and hypertension frequently results in cardiovascular disease, which is one of the leading causes of death in dialysis patients. It is plausible that low dialysate [Na+] may decrease total body sodium content, thereby reducing fluid overload and hypertension, and ultimately reducing cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using a low (<138 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science up to August 22, 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both parallel and cross-over, of low (<138 mM) versus neutral (138-140 mM) or high (>140 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance HD patients were included. Mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values were estimated to compare the outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed trial quality independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures of RevMan 5.2.
RESULTS
12 Randomised controlled trials with 390 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Of these studies, three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine were crossover. Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na], low dialysate [Na] reduced dialysis mean arterial pressure (MAP) with a pooled MD of -3.38 mmHg (95% CI -4.57 to -2.19; P < 0.00001), reduced interdialytic weight gain with a pooled MD of -0.35 kg (95% CI -0.51 to -0.18; P < 0.0001), reduced predialysis serum [Na] with a pooled MD of -2.62 mM (95% CI -3.59 to -1.66; P < 0.00001). In contrast, low dialysate [Na] increased intradialytic hypotension events with a pooled RR of 1.54 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.05; P = 0.003), increased the incidence of intradialytic cramps with a pooled RR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.73; P = 0.01). However, no difference was found between lower and higher dialysate [Na] in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Though our pooled result indicated that low dialysate [Na+] reduced MAP, interdialytic weight gain and predialysis serum [Na] significantly, it also indicated that low dialysate [Na+] could increase the incidence of intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic cramps events. Considering the contradiction in efficacy and safety of low dialysate [Na+] in our analysis, future larger and up-to-date definitive studies are needed to evaluate the medium to long-term effects of low sodium levels in dialysis fluid, and better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Hypotension; Renal Dialysis; Sodium; Weight Gain
PubMed: 32447003
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.027 -
American Journal of Kidney Diseases :... Jun 2020The efficacy and safety of icodextrin versus glucose-only peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimens is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare once-daily long-dwell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE
The efficacy and safety of icodextrin versus glucose-only peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimens is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare once-daily long-dwell icodextrin versus glucose among patients with kidney failure undergoing PD.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enriched with unpublished data from investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored studies.
SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS
Individuals with kidney failure receiving regular PD treatment enrolled in clinical trials of dialysate composition.
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES
Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ichushi Web, 10 Chinese databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and citation lists from inception to November 2018. Further data were obtained from principal investigators and industry clinical study reports.
DATA EXTRACTION
2 independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data using a prespecified extraction instrument.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
Qualitative synthesis of demographics, measurement scales, and outcomes. Quantitative synthesis with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), Peto odds ratios (ORs), or (standardized) mean differences (MDs). Risk of bias of included studies at the outcome level was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs.
RESULTS
19 RCTs that enrolled 1,693 participants were meta-analyzed. Ultrafiltration was improved with icodextrin (medium-term MD, 208.92 [95% CI, 99.69-318.14] mL/24h; high certainty of evidence), reflected also by fewer episodes of fluid overload (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.78]; high certainty). Icodextrin-containing PD probably decreased mortality risk compared to glucose-only PD (Peto OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24-1.00]; moderate certainty). Despite evidence of lower peritoneal glucose absorption with icodextrin-containing PD (medium-term MD, -40.84 [95% CI, -48.09 to-33.59] g/long dwell; high certainty), this did not directly translate to changes in fasting plasma glucose (-0.50 [95% CI, -1.19 to 0.18] mmol/L; low certainty) and hemoglobin A levels (-0.14% [95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%]; high certainty). Safety outcomes and residual kidney function were similar in both groups; health-related quality-of-life and pain scores were inconclusive.
LIMITATIONS
Trial quality was variable. The follow-up period was heterogeneous, with a paucity of assessments over the long term. Mortality results are based on just 32 events and were not corroborated using time-to-event analysis of individual patient data.
CONCLUSIONS
Icodextrin for once-daily long-dwell PD has clinical benefit for some patients, including those not meeting ultrafiltration targets and at risk for fluid overload. Future research into patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness associated with icodextrin is needed.
Topics: Dialysis Solutions; Glucose; Humans; Icodextrin; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Peritoneal Dialysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32033860
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.10.004 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2020Central venous catheters are used extensively as temporary or permanent vascular access for haemodialysis patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections are the main... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative efficacy and safety of lock solutions for the prevention of catheter-related complications including infectious and bleeding events in adult haemodialysis patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters are used extensively as temporary or permanent vascular access for haemodialysis patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections are the main complication of central venous catheters and increase morbidity and mortality in haemodialysis patients.
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to assess the most appropriate lock solution for central venous catheters to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections and other complications.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of their inception to August 2018 were used as data sources. The reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews were also checked.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different lock solutions for the prevention of central venous catheter-related infectious and bleeding complications for adult dialysis patients were included.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions were lock solutions for haemodialysis catheters.
METHODS
The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infections and bleeding events. The secondary outcomes were catheter malfunction, exit-site infection, and all-cause mortality. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Forty-nine trials (7020 patients) were included for this study. Compared with heparin 5000 U/mL, antibiotic locks (antibiotics with trisodium citrate (TSC), ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), heparin 5000 U/mL, low-dose heparin or urokinase) and ethanol locks were more effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections. Antimicrobial agents plus low-dose heparin (500-2500 U/mL), TSC and low-dose heparin locks had lower risk of bleeding events than heparin 5000 U/mL. None of the lock solutions reduced rates of catheter malfunction and all-cause mortality compared with heparin 5000 U/mL. In summary, antibiotics plus low-dose heparin was ranked as the best lock solution. The overall results were not materially changed in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account both efficacy and safety, antibiotics plus low-dose heparin (500-2500 U/mL) may be the preferred lock solution.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Anticoagulants; Bacteremia; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Hemorrhage; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Renal Dialysis; Safety; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31857208
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.12.003