Hypertonic Mannitol for the Prevention of Intradialytic Hypotension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A real-world pharmacovigilance case/non-case study of FDA adverse event reporting system events for mannitol

BACKGROUND

Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, is widely used to treat edema, intracranial hypertension, and cerebral edema. This study analyzed mannitol-related adverse events (AEs) using the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) data to identify potential safety signals.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective pharmacovigilance study was conducted using FAERS data from Q1 2013 to Q4 2023. Signal detection algorithms, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR), were employed to identify and evaluate mannitol-related AEs. The analysis focused on the frequency, severity, and clinical relevance of reported AEs.

RESULTS

Among 39,061,894 reports, 1,014 mentioned mannitol. Common AEs included increased intracranial pressure, hyperosmolar state, hyperchloremia, and hypernatremia. 80% of AEs fell under 'renal and urinary disorders' (295 cases), 'skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders' (371 cases). Specific preferred terms (PTs) linked with mannitol included 'hyperosmolar state', (ROR = 665.98 (95% CI: 272.28-1628.95), PRR = 664.53 (95% CI: 269.75-1637.1)), 'hyperchloremia,' 'hypernatremia' (ROR = 25.18 (95% CI: 17.66-35.9), PRR = 24.85 (95% CI: 17.46-35.36)).

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the need for vigilant monitoring of mannitol use. Further research is required to understand the mechanisms behind unexpected AEs and establish a comprehensive safety profile.

Higher NT-proBNP levels and the risk of intradialytic hypotension at hemodialysis initiation

INTRODUCTION

Elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is a potent predictor of adverse outcomes in hemodialysis initiation. These patients often experience intradialytic hypotension, which may partially reflect cardiac dysfunction, but the association of NT-proBNP with intradialytic hypotension is not clear.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial that tested mannitol versus placebo in 52 patients initiating hemodialysis (NCT01520207). NT-proBNP was measured prior to the first and third sessions (n = 87). Mixed-effects models (adjusting for randomized treatment, sex, race, age, diabetes, heart failure, catheter use, pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure, pre-dialysis weight, ultrafiltration volume, serum sodium, bicarbonate, urea nitrogen, phosphate, albumin, hemoglobin, and session length) were fit to examine the association of NT-proBNP with systolic blood pressure decline (pre-dialysis minus nadir systolic blood pressure). Additionally, mixed-effects Poisson models were fit to examine the association with intradialytic hypotension (≥20 mmHg decline in systolic blood pressure).

FINDINGS

Mean age was 55 ± 16 years; 33% had baseline heart failure. The median NT-proBNP was 5498 [25th-75th percentile 2011, 14,790] pg/mL; 26 sessions (30%) were complicated by intradialytic hypotension. In adjusted models, each unit higher log-NT-proBNP was associated with 6.0 mmHg less decline in systolic blood pressure (95%CI -9.2 to -2.8). Higher pre-dialysis NT-proBNP, per log-unit, was associated with a 52% lower risk of intradialytic hypotension (IRR 0.48, 95%CI 0.23-0.97), without evidence for effect modification by randomized treatment (P-interaction = 0.17).

DISCUSSION

In patients initiating hemodialysis, higher NT-proBNP is associated with less decline in intradialytic systolic blood pressure and lower risk of intradialytic hypotension. Future studies should investigate if higher pre-dialysis NT-proBNP levels may identify patients who might tolerate more aggressive ultrafiltration.

Management of Intermittent Hemodialysis in the Critically Ill Patient

Intermittent hemodialysis remains a cornerstone of extracorporeal KRT in the intensive care unit, either as a first-line therapy for AKI or a second-line therapy when patients transition from a continuous or prolonged intermittent therapy. Intermittent hemodialysis is usually provided 3 days per week in this setting on the basis that no clinical benefits have been demonstrated with more frequent hemodialysis. This should not detract from the importance of continually assessing and refining the hemodialysis prescription (including the need for extra treatments) according to dynamic changes in extracellular volume and other parameters, and ensuring that an adequate dose of hemodialysis is being delivered to the patient. Compared with other KRT modalities, the cardinal challenge encountered during intermittent hemodialysis is hemodynamic instability. This phenomenon occurs when reductions in intravascular volume, as a consequence of ultrafiltration and/or osmotic shifts, outpace compensatory plasma refilling from the extravascular space. Myocardial stunning, triggered by intermittent hemodialysis, and independent of ultrafiltration, may also contribute. The hemodynamic effect of intermittent hemodialysis is likely magnified in patients who are critically ill due to an inability to mount sufficient compensatory physiologic responses in the context of multiorgan dysfunction. Of the many interventions that have undergone testing to mitigate hemodynamic instability related to KRT, the best evidence exists for cooling the dialysate and raising the dialysate sodium concentration. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting routine use of these and other interventions is weak owing to poor study quality and limited sample sizes. Intermittent hemodialysis will continue to be an important and commonly used KRT modality for AKI in patients with critical illness, especially in jurisdictions where resources are limited. There is an urgent need to harmonize the definition of hemodynamic instability related to KRT in clinical trials and robustly test strategies to combat it in this vulnerable patient population.

Use of non-invasive intracranial pressure pulse waveform to monitor patients with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is treated mainly by hemodialysis, however, hemodialysis is associated with frequent complications, some of them involve the increased intracranial pressure. In this context, monitoring the intracranial pressure of these patients may lead to a better understanding of how intracranial pressure morphology varies with hemodialysis. This study aimed to follow-up patients with ESRD by monitoring intracranial pressure before and after hemodialysis sessions using a noninvasive method. We followed-up 42 patients with ESRD in hemodialysis, for six months. Noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring data were obtained through analysis of intracranial pressure waveform morphology, this information was uploaded to Brain4care® cloud algorithm for analysis. The cloud automatically sends a report containing intracranial pressure parameters. In total, 4881 data points were collected during the six months of follow-up. The intracranial pressure parameters (time to peak and P2/P1 ratio) were significantly higher in predialysis when compared to postdialysis for the three weekly sessions and throughout the follow-up period (p<0.01) data showed general improvement in brain compliance after the hemodialysis session. Furthermore, intracranial pressure parameters were significantly higher in the first weekly hemodialysis session (p<0.05). In conclusion, there were significant differences between pre and postdialysis intracranial pressure in patients with ESRD on hemodialysis. Additionally, the pattern of the intracranial pressure alterations was consistent over time suggesting that hemodialysis can improve time to peak and P2/P1 ratio which may reflect in brain compliance.

Intradialytic Hypotension and Newly Recognized Peripheral Artery Disease in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) may decrease systemic circulation to the legs, exacerbating symptoms of peripheral artery disease (PAD). We sought to evaluate the relationship between IDH and newly recognized lower extremity PAD among hemodialysis patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Linking data from the US Renal Data System to the electronic health records of a large dialysis provider, we identified adult patients (≥18 years of age) with Medicare Parts A and B who initiated dialysis (2006-2011) without previously recognized PAD.

EXPOSURE

The time-varying proportion of hemodialysis sessions with IDH defined as the nadir intradialytic systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg. We categorized the proportion of sessions with IDH within serial 30-day intervals as 0%, >0% to <15%, 15% to <30%, and ≥30%.

OUTCOMES

Newly recognized PAD was ascertained using PAD diagnostic and procedure codes for amputation or revascularization, in serial 30-day intervals subsequent to each 30-day exposure interval.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

To account for the competing risks of death and kidney transplantation, we estimated unadjusted and adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios using the Kaplan-Meier multiple imputation method in combination with the extended Cox model to account for IDH as a time-varying exposure.

RESULTS

Among 45,591 patients, those with more frequent baseline IDH had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases. During 61,725 person-years of follow-up, 7,886 patients had newly recognized PAD. We found a graded, direct association between IDH and newly recognized PAD. For example, having IDH in ≥30% of dialysis sessions during a given 30-day interval (vs 0%) was associated with a 24% (95% CI, 17%-32%) higher hazard than having newly recognized PAD in the subsequent 30 days.

LIMITATIONS

Unmeasured confounding; ascertainment of PAD from claims.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving hemodialysis who had more frequent IDH had higher rates of newly recognized PAD. Patients with frequent IDH may warrant careful examination for PAD.

An update review of intradialytic hypotension: concept, risk factors, clinical implications and management

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a frequent and serious complication of chronic haemodialysis, linked to adverse long-term outcomes including increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. IDH is the end result of the interaction between ultrafiltration rate (UFR), cardiac output and arteriolar tone. Thus excessive ultrafiltration may decrease the cardiac output, especially when compensatory mechanisms (heart rate, myocardial contractility, vascular tone and splanchnic flow shifts) fail to be optimally recruited. The repeated disruption of end-organ perfusion in IDH may lead to various adverse clinical outcomes affecting the heart, central nervous system, kidney and gastrointestinal system. Potential interventions to decrease the incidence or severity of IDH include optimization of the dialysis prescription (cool dialysate, UFR, sodium profiling and high-flux haemofiltration), interventions during the dialysis session (midodrine, mannitol, food intake, intradialytic exercise and intermittent pneumatic compression of the lower limbs) and interventions in the interdialysis period (lower interdialytic weight gain and blood pressure–lowering drugs). However, the evidence base for many of these interventions is thin and optimal prevention and management of IDH awaits further clinical investigation. Developing a consensus definition of IDH will facilitate clinical research. We review the most recent findings on risk factors, pathophysiology and management of IDH and, based on this, we call for a new consensus definition of IDH based on clinical outcomes and define a roadmap for IDH research.