|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 1 | Page : 127-133 |
|
Role of dialysate sodium and serum sodium gradient in intradialytic hypertension of regular hemodialysis patients
Mohamed M Fayed, Emad A Mohamed, Hindawy A Zidan, Ahmed A Assem, Moahmed A El-Sayed
Internal Medicine Department, Al-Azhar University of Cairo, Egypt
| Date of Submission | 29-Jul-2021 |
| Date of Decision | 28-Nov-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 06-Dec-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 4-Mar-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
MBBS Mohamed M Fayed
Internal Medicine Department, Al-Azhar University of Cairo, Postal Code: 22762
Egypt
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/azmj.azmj_84_21
Background and aim Sodium (Na+) balance largely depends on interdialytic dietary salt intake and intradialytic Na+ removal during hemodialysis (HD) for chronic renal failure cases. To preserve a normal Na+ equilibrium, interdialytic Na+ increase should be filtered during HD. Sodium gradient (Na+ G) is obtained by subtraction of the dialysate Na+ concentration and the patient’s own pre-HD plasma sodium concentration. The aim was to evaluate the role of dialysate and serum Na+ G in patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH).
Patients and methods A cross-sectional observational study was done to evaluate the role of Na+ G in IDH in a cohort of HD patients followed in the dialysis center of Damanhur Fever Hospital. Among 119 prevalent patients on MHD in our center during period from March 2021 to July 2021, we found 26 patients with IDH, so we selected a control group of 26 patients with intradialytic normotension (age and sex matched). So, the study included 52 patients (age and sex matched) who were divided into two groups: group A included 26 patients who were intradialytic normotensive, and group B included 26 patients with IDH.
Results A total of 52 patients were included in our final analysis. The sample included patients who are diagnosed with ESRD and under regular HD schedule, with a mean±SD age of 54.4±12.3 years. Comparison of different sodium concentrations revealed that there was no significant difference between pre-dialytic, and postdialytic Na serum levels, along with no difference in sodium gradients, with P values greater than 0.05.
Conclusion IDH was not significantly associated with sodium gradient, age, sex, hemoglobin level, and predialytic and postdialytic serum sodium concentrations.
Keywords: dialysate sodium, hemodialysis, intradialytic hypertension, sodium gradient
How to cite this article:
Fayed MM, Mohamed EA, Zidan HA, Assem AA, El-Sayed MA. Role of dialysate sodium and serum sodium gradient in intradialytic hypertension of regular hemodialysis patients. Al-Azhar Assiut Med J 2022;20:127-33 |
How to cite this URL:
Fayed MM, Mohamed EA, Zidan HA, Assem AA, El-Sayed MA. Role of dialysate sodium and serum sodium gradient in intradialytic hypertension of regular hemodialysis patients. Al-Azhar Assiut Med J [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 29];20:127-33. Available from: http://www.azmj.eg.net/text.asp?2022/20/1/127/339081 |
| Introduction | |  |
Hemodialysis (HD) remains the most widely used modality of renal replacement therapy for patients with end‑stage renal disease worldwide and is usually performed for 3–5 h, 3 days per week [1]. Cardiovascular disease is recognized as the commonest cause of mortality in patients with maintenance HD; moreover, hypertension is known to be a complicating factor, especially during HD session [2]. However, a notable group of patients demonstrate increase in BP during the HD, which is termed intradialytic hypertension (IDH) [3], but, to date, there is no standard definition, and the most popular definition is an increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 10 mmHg from before to after dialysis [4]. This phenomenon, which is termed IDH, is a neglected and poorly understood complication of HD. So, early identification and management of this complication will decrease the cardiovascular risks [5].
Its prevalence may differ from one study to another. Observation studies in the 1990s demonstrated that hypertension during dialysis occurs in 5–15% of patients; recently, this condition has been reported to reach an incidence of 28.4% [6]. Among 100,000 HD patients who were under follow-up for 5 years, a mean SBP decline of 14 mmHg was reported in the group with better survival, whereas the mortality rate was higher among patients with either any rise in SBP (IH) or a 30-mmHg reduction in SBP (intradialytic hypotension) [7].
The pathogenesis of IDH is a complex process, which is not well known; however, multiple factors are involved in the pathogenesis of IH. It includes overload of extracellular fluid and increased interdialytic weight gain, high cardiac output, initiation of the renin-angiotensin system, stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, endothelial dysfunction, peripheral vessels constriction, and poor compliance to antihypertensive drugs by dialysis as well as the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents [8].
In patients with CKD, sodium (Na+) equilibrium is largely affected by interdialytic dietary salt intake, besides intradialytic Na+ removal. To maintain sodium balance, interdialytic Na+ increase should be decreased during HD. A higher dialysate sodium concentration (DNa) decreases the level of dialysis discomfort and the incidence of intradialytic hypotension. However, there is a concern that a DNa higher than the serum sodium concentration (SNa) usually results in a diffusive Na+ flux from dialysate to the patient’s circulation, which leads to a positive Na+ balance during HD, and consequently, fluid overload and IDH [9]. Na+ gradient is equal to the DNa+ (dialysate Na concentration) minus the patient’s own pre-HD PNa+ (plasma Na+ concentration) [8]. However, the potential correlation between the intradialytic sodium gradient (Na+ G) and IH behavior during HD is much less defined. The literature reveals conflicting evidence regarding association between sodium gradient and incidence of IDH. We aimed in the current study to evaluate the role of dialysate and serum sodium Na+ gradient in patients with IDH.
| Patients and methods | | |
This is a cross-sectional observational study to evaluate the role of Na+ G in intradialytic BP variation in a cohort of prevalent HD patients followed in the dialysis center of the division of nephrology, Damanhur Fever Hospital, El-Beheira Governorate, Egypt. Among 119 prevalent patients on MHD in our center during the period from March 2021 to July 2021, 26 patients had IDH, so we selected a control group of 26 patients with intradialytic normotensive (age and sex matched). So, the study included 52 patients (age and sex matched) who divided into 2 groups: group A included 26 patients who were intradialytic normotensives, and group B included 26 patients with IDH. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage renal disease and were on regular HD. The study was conducted in the nephrology unit of Bab El-Sharia, Al-Azhar University Hospital.
We included all of the prevalent patients in March 2021, with the following inclusion criteria: adults greater than 18 years old, two to three sessions of HD weekly, HD treatment for at least 6 months, and urinary output less than 150 ml/24 h. Exclusion criteria were established heart failure, severe hyperglycemia (pre-HD plasma >250 mg/dl), decompensated liver cirrhosis, inflammatory diseases [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarcoidosis, etc.], active malignancy, and hospital admission for any cause in the 4 weeks before the study.
IDH was defined as an elevation in SBP greater than 10 mmHg from before to after dialysis to determine patients with intradialytic hypertensive from those without. All included patients were evaluated by detailed medical history, thorough clinical examinations, and full laboratory tests, including complete blood count, kidney function tests, liver function tests, and predialytic plasma sodium (pNa), and dialytic sodium (dNa) concentrations, which were determined using the online conductivity measurements on HD machines. Blood pressure was measured in pre, intra, and postdialytic periods to assess the difference throughout the dialysis session.
Sample size: we used a convenient period sample. We included all patients who were diagnosed with ESRD on regular HD for at least 6 months and with a urinary output of less than 150 ml/24 h in the period between March 2021 and July 2021.
Ethical considerations: the study protocol was approved by the ethical committee of Al-Azhar University. An oral consent was taken from patients after illustration of study procedures.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of data was performed using SPSS, IBM, (NY, USA). Continuous data were presented in mean±SD and compared using Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test based on normality testing. Categorical variables were presented in frequencies and percentages, and correlations were made using χ2-test. P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
| Results | | |
A sample of 52 patients were included in our final analysis from 119 prevalent patients in our center on MHD from period March 2021 to July 2021. These included 52 patients who were divided into two groups (age and sex matched): group A included 26 patients who are intradialytic normotensives, and group B included 26 patients with IDH. This sample included patients diagnosed with ESRD and who were under regular HD schedule, with a mean±SD age of 54.4±12.3 years and mean±SD BMI of 27.8±5.4. Males represented the majority of our sample (76.9%). The commonest cause of HD was ESRD owing to hypertension (90.4%), whereas 7.7% were owing to diabetic nephropathy and 1.9% lupus nephritis.
Overall, 75% received three sessions of HD a week and 25% of patients twice weekly ([Table 1]). Only 3 patients had lower limb edema (5.8%). Most of the included patients were treated with antihypertensives; 67.3% used only one drug, 17.3% had two drugs, 13.5% had three drug, and only one patient took four antihypertensive drugs. The most commonly used antihypertensive drug was BB, followed by CCB, ACE, and AB (44.2, 42.3, 19.2, and 15.4%, respectively) ([Table 2]). Comparison between groups showed no significant differences in antihypertensive drug use, with P values greater than 0.05 ([Table 2]).
Comparison between baseline clinical characteristics and demographics based on the development of IDH showed that there was no significant difference between both groups in terms of sex, diagnosis, number of sessions, antihypertensive drugs, and positive hepatitis viral infections, with P values greater than 0.05. However, erythropoietin injections were significantly correlated with development of IDH, with P value 0.02, as patients who received three injections weekly showed significant association with development of IDH ([Table 3]). | Table 3 Comparison of erythropoietin supplementation between study groups
Click here to view |
There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, BMI, predialytic weight, postdialytic weight, and interdialytic weight, with P values greater than 0.05 ([Table 4]). | Table 4 Comparison of patterns of weight changes during dialysis between groups
Click here to view |
Regarding laboratory findings of pre, post, and intradialytic periods, there was no statistically significant difference between normointradialytic blood pressure and IDH patients in terms of laboratory findings, including pre and postdialytic sodium, sodium gradient, and hemoglobin, with P values greater than 0.05 ([Figure 1]). Comparison of different sodium concentrations revealed that there was no significant difference between pre, dialytic, and postdialytic Na serum levels; thus, there was no significant difference in mean sodium gradients between groups, with P values greater than 0.05 ([Table 5]). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that there was no significant prediction of IDH using sodium gradient, with a P value of 0.83, using a cutoff point greater than 1.5 with a sensitivity of 92.6% and a specificity of 83.3%. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed no significant prediction of IDH using pre and dialytic plasma Na levels, with P values of 0.55 and 0.12, respectively. Sodium gradient was not significantly correlated with interdialytic weight gain, with P value of 0.19 and correlation coefficient of 0.2 ([Figure 2]). | Figure 2 Receiver operating characteristic curve showing the predictability of sodium gradient for intradialytic hypertension.
Click here to view |
Sodium gradient was not significantly correlated with interdialytic weight gain, with a P value of 0.19 and correlation coefficient of 0.2 ([Figure 3]). | Figure 3 Scatter plot correlating interdialytic weight gain and sodium gradient.
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
IDH has been described variedly, and there is currently no uniformly recognized definition. Many studies have proposed that each dialysis patient has his unique osmolar set point for plasma sodium, so dialysate sodium (DNa) should be individualized [9].
In the current study, we investigated the role of sodium gradient in the incidence of IDH (IDH). Among 119 prevalent patients on MHD in our center during the period from March 2021 to July 2021, we found 26 patients with IDH, so we selected a control group of 26 patients of intradialytic normotensives (age and sex matched). So, the study included 52 patients (age and sex matched) who were divided into two groups: group A included 26 patients who are intradialytic normotensives, and group B included 26 patients with IDH. The sample included patients who are diagnosed with ESRD who are under regular HD schedule, with a mean±SD age of 54.4±12.3 years and mean±SD BMI of 27.85.4.
There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline characteristics of the included participants in terms of age, sex, and BMI. This came in agreement with Iring et al. [4] and Shamir et al. [10], who compared the incidence of IDH among patients with ESRD, proving that the baseline characteristics were not significantly different between study groups.
However, this was different from results yielded from a study conducted by Yang et al. [11], when they concluded that patients with IDH tend to be older than other patients who did not develop IDH.
In the present study, hemoglobin level was not significantly associated with development of IDH, with a P value of 0.21. This agrees with another Egyptian study, which revealed that hemoglobin level did not significantly affect the incidence of IDH, with P value of 0.13 [12]. Moreover, two prospective studies were conducted to correlate the hemoglobin level with IDH [4],[11], although we demonstrated that the incidence of IDH was significantly associated with weekly erythropoietin injection, with a P value of 0.02.
Widespread usage of recombinant erythropoietin injection has been confirmed to increase the incidence of IDH in late nineties, when Levin stated that 20–30% rise in IDH in the era of erythropoietin; several mechanisms are being proposed [13]. Neff et al. [14] explained that the increase of ID blood pressure associated with the rise of hematocrit after using erythropoietin led to increased blood viscosity and increased peripheral resistance, finally leading to elevation of BP. Other studies found that erythropoietin receptors present on endothelial cells stimulate ET-1, which similarly results from erythropoietin treatment [15],[16]. The results of the present study proved there was no significant correlation between incidence of IDH and increased sodium gradient, with a P value of 0.83. In addition, interdialytic weight gain was not significantly correlated with development of IDH, with a P value of 0.60.
Sensitivity analysis showed that sodium gradient was not a significant predictor of IDH, with a P value of 0.83, using a cutoff point >1.5 with a sensitivity of 92.6% and a specificity of 83.3%. Moreover, pre- and dialytic plasma Na levels were not significant predictors of IDH, with P values of 0.55 and 0.12, respectively.
These findings agree with the ones published by Kora and colleagues, who investigated the role of sodium gradient and interdialytic weight gain in the occurrence of blood pressure changes intradialytically (hypotension or hypertension) among patients with ESRD and under regular HD. They conducted a cross-sectional study on 102 HD patients and divided them into 3 groups: no BP variability, intradialytic hypotension, and IDH. The results revealed that there was no significant difference in interdialytic weight gain and sodium gradient among the three groups, with P values of 0.77 and 0.46, respectively. On the contrary, they concluded that there was a positive correlation between sodium gradient and interdialytic weight gain and consequently ultrafiltration volume and rate [12].
Moreover, these findings are consistent with the studies conducted by Trinh and Weber, who conducted a cross-section study on 110 conventional HD patients who were diagnosed with ESRD at a single center. Moreover, they concluded that there was no association between intradialytic hypotension, IDH, or arterial blood pressure and sodium gradient. Moreover, there was no significant difference in 6-month hospitalization or mortality risk in relation to sodium gradient [17]. Moreover, Shamir and colleagues recruited 80 HD patients in a cross-sectional study aiming for defining an association between intradialytic change in blood pressure and cardiac structure and function in hypertensive HD patients who were enrolled in a multicenter blood pressure in dialysis (BID) clinical trial. The results of this study found no correlation between sodium gradient and IDH, with a P value of 0.77, when compared among groups [10].
Our results disagree with Shah and Davenport, who detected an association between elevated SBP and progressive prescription of antihypertensive medications in HD patients with low dNa concentrations [18]. However, Zhou et al. [19] correlated BP and interdialytic weight gain decline with lower dNa in patients at the same volume status. In contrast, Suckling et al. [20] highlighted that a decrease in BP when using dNa of 135 rather than 145 mEq/l but did not report on symptoms.
Recently, there has been considerable evidence that minimizing sodium gradient in HD patients as there is a positive correlation with changes in BP during HD and IDWG [21],[22]
Limitations of this study included limited number of patients, as the inclusion criteria only applied for 52 patients among the frequent individuals who were undergoing HD at our center. Moreover, the limited recourse, as IDH could be missed except if the patients is connected to a monitor, which more frequently measures blood pressure, allowing detection of even asymptomatic BP rise. We concluded that IDH was not significantly associated with sodium gradient, age, sex, hemoglobin level, and predialytic and postdialytic serum sodium concentrations.
Recommendations
Large prospective trials should be conducted to assess the correlation between sodium gradient and development of IDH. Besides, prospective cohort studies should be designed to assess the risk factors associated with IDH. Moreover, the patients should be connected to monitors during the HD sessions to report asymptomatic rise of BP.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Saran R, Li Y, Robinson B. US Renal Data System 2014 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States (vol 66, pg S1, 2015). Am J Kidney Dis 66:545–545.  |
| 2. | Foley RN, Herzog CA, Collins AJ. Blood pressure and long-term mortality in United States hemodialysis patients: USRDS Waves 3 and 4 Study. Kidney Int 2002; 62:1784–1790. |
| 3. | Van Buren PN, Inrig JK. Mechanisms and treatment of intradialytic hypertension. Blood Purif 2016; 41:188–193. |
| 4. | Inrig JK, Patel UD, Toto RD, Szczech LA. Association of blood pressure increases during hemodialysis with 2-year mortality in incident hemodialysis patients: a secondary analysis of the Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Wave 2 Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2009; 54:881–890. |
| 5. | Kumar S, Khosravi M, Massart A, Potluri M, Davenport A. Are serum to dialysate sodium gradient and segmental bioimpedance volumes associated with the fall in blood pressure with hemodialysis?. Int J Artif Organs 2014; 37:21–28. |
| 6. | Sebastian S, Filmalter C, Harvey J, Chothia MY. Intradialytic hypertension during chronic haemodialysis and subclinical fluid overload assessed by bioimpedance spectroscopy. Clin Kidney J 2016; 9:636–643. |
| 7. | Park J, Rhee CM, Sim JJ, Kim YL, Ricks J, Streja E et al. A comparative effectiveness research study of the change in blood pressure during hemodialysis treatment and survival. Kidney Int 2013; 84:795–802. |
| 8. | Movilli E, Camerini C, Gaggia P, Zubani R, Feller P, Poiatti P et al. Role of dialysis sodium gradient on intradialytic hypertension: an observational study. Am J Nephrol 2013; 38:413–419. |
| 9. | Jin H, Lee SY, Lee SN, Song JH, Kim MJ, Lee SW. Effect of dialysate sodium concentration on sodium gradient and hemodialysis parameters. Electrolyte Blood Press 2014; 12:66–73. |
| 10. | Shamir AR, Karembelkar A, Yabes J, Yao Y, Miskulin D, Gassman J et al. Association of intradialytic hypertension with left ventricular mass in hypertensive hemodialysis patients enrolled in the blood pressure in dialysis study. Kidney Blood Press Res 2018; 43:882–892. |
| 11. | Yang CY, Yang WC, Lin YP. Post dialysis blood pressure rise predicts long term outcomes in chronic hemodialysis patients: a four year prospective observational cohort study. BMC Nephrol 2012; 13:12–16. |
| 12. | Kora MA, Tawfeek AR, Kasem HA, Omar AA. Dialysis sodium gradient: a modifiable risk factor for fluid overload in hemodialysis patients. Menoufia Med J 2020; 33:783. [Full text] |
| 13. | Levin NW. Intradialytic hypertension: I. Semin Dial 1993; 6:370–371. |
| 14. | Neff MS, KIm KE, Persoff M, Onesti G, Swartz C. Hemodynamics of uremic anemia. Circulation 1971; 43:876–883. |
| 15. | Carlini R, Obialo CI, Rothstein M. Intravenous erythropoietin (rHuEPO) administration increases plasma endothelin and blood pressure in hemodialysis patients. Am J Hypertens 1993; 6:103–107. |
| 16. | Chen J, Gul A, Sarnak MJ. Unresolved issues in dialysis: Management of intradialytic hypertension: the ongoing challenge. In: Seminars in dialysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Inc; 2006; 19. pp. 141–145. Wiley Online Library. |
| 17. | Trinh E, Weber C. The dialysis sodium gradient: a modifiable risk factor for fluid overload. Nephron Extra 2017; 7:10–17. |
| 18. | Shah A, Davenport A. Does a reduction in dialysate sodium improve blood pressure control in haemodialysis patients? Nephrology 2012; 17:358–363. |
| 19. | Zhou YL, Liu HL, Duan XF. Impact of sodium and ultrafiltration profiling on hemodialysis related hypotension. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013; 21:3231–3237. |
| 20. | Suckling RJ, Swift PA, He FJ, Markandu ND, MacGregor GA. Altering plasma sodium concentration rapidly changes blood pressure during haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013; 28:2181–2186. |
| 21. | Munoz Mendoza J, Sun S, Chertow GM, Moran J, Doss S, Schiller B. Dialysate sodium and sodium gradient in maintenance hemodialysis: a neglected sodium restriction approach?. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 26:1281–1287. |
| 22. | Penne EL, Sergeyeva O. Sodium gradient: a tool to individualize dialysate sodium prescription in chronic hemodialysis patients?. Blood Purif 2011; 31:86–91. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]
|
![JOURNAL_FULL_NAME]](images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Search Pubmed for