Acute effect of citrate bath on postdialysis alkalaemia

The metabolomic differential plasma profile between dialysates. Pursuing to understand the mechanisms of citrate dialysate clinical benefits

Background: Currently, bicarbonate-based dialysate needs a buffer to prevent precipitation of bicarbonate salts with the bivalent cations, and acetate at 3-4 mmol/L is the most used. However, citrate is being postulated as a preferred option because of its association with better clinical results by poorly understood mechanisms. In that sense, this hypothesis-generating study aims to identify potential metabolites that could biologically explain these improvements found in patients using citrate dialysate. Methods: A unicentric, cross-over, prospective untargeted metabolomics study was designed to analyze the differences between two dialysates only differing in their buffer, one containing 4 mmol/L of acetate (AD) and the other 1 mmol/L of citrate (CD). Blood samples were collected in four moments (i.e., pre-, mid-, post-, and 30-min-post-dialysis) and analyzed in an untargeted metabolomics approach based on UPLC-Q-ToF mass spectrometry. Results: The 31 most discriminant metabolomic variables from the plasma samples of the 21 participants screened by their potential clinical implications show that, after dialysis with CD, some uremic toxins appear to be better cleared, the lysine degradation pathway is affected, and branched-chain amino acids post-dialysis levels are 9-10 times higher than with AD; and, on its part, dialysis with AD affects acylcarnitine clearance. Conclusion: Although most metabolic changes seen in this study could be attributable to the dialysis treatment itself, this study successfully identifies some metabolic variables that differ between CD and AD, which raise new hypotheses that may unveil the mechanisms involved in the clinical improvements observed with citrate in future research.

Increasing the Magnesium Concentration in Various Dialysate Solutions Differentially Modulates Oxidative Stress in a Human Monocyte Cell Line

Oxidative stress is exacerbated in hemodialysis patients by several factors, including the uremic environment and the use of dialysis fluids (DFs). Since magnesium (Mg) plays a key role in modulating immune function and in reducing oxidative stress, we aimed to evaluate whether increasing the Mg concentration in different DFs could protect against oxidative stress in immunocompetent cells in vitro. Effect of ADF (acetate 3 mM), CDF (citrate 1 mM), and ACDF (citrate 0.8 mM + acetate 0.3 mM) dialysates with Mg at standard (0.5 mM) or higher (1, 1.25, and 2 mM) concentrations were assessed in THP-1 monocyte cultures. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were quantified under basal and uremic conditions (indoxyl sulfate (IS) treatment). Under uremic conditions, the three DFs with 0.5 mM Mg promoted higher ROS production and lipid damage than the control solution. However, CDF and ACDF induced lower levels of ROS and MDA, compared to that induced by ADF. High Mg concentration (1.25 and/or 2 mM) in CDF and ACDF protected against oxidative stress, indicated by reduced ROS and MDA levels compared to respective DFs with standard concentration of Mg. Increasing Mg concentrations in ADF promoted high ROS production and MDA content. Thus, an increase in Mg content in DFs has differential effects on the oxidative stress in IS-treated THP-1 cells depending on the dialysate used.

Citrate dialysate does not induce oxidative stress or inflammation in vitro as compared to acetate dialysate

Increased acetataemia during haemodialysis sessions has been associated with a number of abnormalities, including increased oxidative stress, pro-inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide synthesis. However, citric acid may play an alternative role to acetate as a dialysate stabiliser given that the effect of citrate on complement and leukocyte activation is different to that of acetate. The purpose of this study was to compare the inflammatory effect in immunocompetent blood cells of acetate dialysate and citrate dialysate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The effect of acetate and/or citrate was investigated in the whole blood of uraemic patients and in healthy in vitro samples. Four types of dialysate were tested: dialysate 1, acetate-free with 1mmol/L of citrate; dialysate 2, with 0.8mmol/L of citrate and 0.3mmol/L of acetate; dialysate 3, citrate-free with 3mmol/L of acetate; and dialysate 4, citrate-free with 4mmol/L of acetate. The cell types used were: human monocyte culture (THP-1); and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy subjects and uraemic patients on haemodialysis. ICAM-1 was determined and levels of reactive oxygen species and total microvesicles were quantified.

RESULTS

Unlike the citrate dialysates, the dialysates with acetate (dialysate 3 and dialysate 4) induced increased ICAM-1 expression density in THP-1 cells; an increase in ICAM-1 expression was observed in the immunocompetent cells of healthy subjects with acetate dialysate (dialysate 3 and dialysate 4) but not with citrate dialysate (dialysate 1 and dialysate 2). No significant ICAM-1 differences were found between the different dialysates in the cells of haemodialysed patients. Reactive oxygen species expression and the number of microvesicles increased significantly with acetate dialysate but not with citrate dialysate in the cells of both healthy subjects and haemodialysed patients.

CONCLUSIONS

At the concentrations in which it is generally used in clinical practice, acetate-based dialysate increases oxidative stress and the total number of microvesicles and may induce other pro-inflammatory stimuli typical of uraemic patients on haemodialysis. Citrate dialysates do not induce this activation, which could make them a suitable alternative in clinical practice.

Is Anticoagulation Discontinuation Achievable with Citrate Dialysate during HDF Sessions?

Citrate dialysate has been developed for few years to replace acetate and HCl concentrates. In Online Postdilution Hemodiafiltration (OL-POST-HDF), several issues are remaining concerning the possibility of stopping anticoagulation during sessions and the side effects of citrate solutions on calcium metabolism. This 1-year monocentric retrospective study included all patients exposed to citrate in OL-POST-HDF with nadroparin decrease for more than one month. Clotting events, serum calcium, PTH, hemoglobin, CRP, depuration parameters, and treatments administrated were recorded for analysis. 27 patients experienced nadroparin decrease and 5 did not receive nadroparin at the end of the study. Nadroparin decrease and withdrawal were both associated with more clotting events whereas the use of vitamin K antagonists was protective. No significant metabolic side effects were observed. Citrate dialysate does not allow anticoagulation discontinuation or decrease but has no significant side effects on mineral bone metabolism or erythropoiesis.

Haemodialysate: long neglected, difficult to optimize, may modify hard outcomes

In two recent CKJ reviews, experts (Basile and Lomonte and Locatelli et al.) have reviewed haemodialysate composition. A long-neglected issue, observational studies have associated the composition of haemodialysate to adverse outcomes. However, the scarcity of clinical trial-derived information results in limited guideline recommendations on the issue. Indeed, guidelines have more frequently indicated what not to do rather than what to do. In this setting, expert opinion becomes invaluable. In designing haemodialysate composition, a balance should be struck between the need to correct within a time frame of around 4 hours the electrolyte and water imbalances that take 48 to 72 h to build, with the need for gradual correction of these imbalances. The issue is complicated further by the impact of individual variability in dietary habits, medications and comorbidities. In this regard, a personalized medicine approach to individualization of haemodialysate composition offers the best chance of improving patient outcomes. But how can haemodialysate individualization be achieved, and what clinical trial design will best test the impact of such approaches on patient outcomes?