The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial

Interventions for fatigue in people with kidney failure requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in people receiving dialysis that is associated with an increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease and depression. Fatigue can also impair quality of life (QoL) and the ability to participate in daily activities. Fatigue has been established by patients, caregivers and health professionals as a core outcome for haemodialysis (HD).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, including HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD), including any setting and frequency of the dialysis treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 18 October 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions affecting levels of fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis were included. Studies were eligible if fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes were reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Any mode, frequency, prescription, and duration of therapy were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardised MD (SMD) if different scales were used. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were eligible. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were compared either to placebo or control, or to another pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. In the majority of domains, risks of bias in the included studies were unclear or high. In low certainty evidence, when compared to control, exercise may improve fatigue (4 studies, 217 participants (Iowa Fatigue Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), or Haemodialysis-Related Fatigue scale score): SMD -1.18, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.31; I2 = 87%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or standard care, aromatherapy may improve fatigue (7 studies, 542 participants (Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Rhoten Fatigue Scale (RFS), PFS or Brief Fatigue Inventory score): SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.50; I2 = 93%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to no intervention, massage may improve fatigue (7 studies, 657 participants (FSS, RFS, PFS or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.47, -0.65; I2 = 81%) and increase energy (2 studies, 152 participants (VAS score): MD 4.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 8.06, I2 = 59%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or control, acupressure may reduce fatigue (6 studies, 459 participants (PFS score, revised PFS, or Fatigue Index): SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.25; I2 = 75%) in HD. A wide range of heterogenous interventions and fatigue-related outcomes were reported for exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure, preventing our capability to pool and analyse the data. Due to the paucity of studies, the effects of pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes, including non-physiological neutral amino acid, relaxation with or without music therapy, meditation, exercise with nandrolone, nutritional supplementation, cognitive-behavioural therapy, ESAs, frequent HD sections, home blood pressure monitoring, blood flow rate reduction, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, beta-blockers, anabolic steroids, glucose-enriched dialysate, or light therapy, were very uncertain. The effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on death, cardiovascular diseases, vascular access, QoL, depression, anxiety, hypertension or diabetes were sparse. No studies assessed tiredness, exhaustion or asthenia. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure may improve fatigue compared to placebo, standard care or no intervention. Pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions had uncertain effects on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis. Future adequately powered, high-quality studies are likely to change the estimated effects of interventions for fatigue and fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis.

Dialysis recovery time: associated factors and its association with quality of life of hemodialysis patients

Introduction

Post-dialysis fatigue is a common and distressing complaint in patients on hemodialysis (HD). The dialysis recovery time (DRT) is a recent and reliable method of Post-dialysis fatigue assessment. We aimed to identify factors affecting the DRT and its relation with HD patients’ quality of life.

Material and methods

This is a cross-sectional study carried out on end-stage renal disease patients on regular HD. All participants underwent detailed history taking and complete physical examination, and data on dialysis and laboratory investigations were also collected. Patients were asked “How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?” to calculate the DRT. We used the Malnutrition-Inflammation Score (MIS) and KDQOL-36 questionnaire to assess patients’ nutritional status and quality of life, respectively.

Results

Two hundred and ten patients were screened and 191, with a median age of 47 years, completed the study. Patients had a median DRT of 300 minutes (range: 0.0–2880.0), with 55% of patients reporting a DRT of > 240 minutes and 22.5% of them reporting a DRT of < 30 minutes. Patients had a median MIS score of 7 (range: 0–17). There was a statistically significant negative relation between the DRT and symptom/ problem list (p < 0.001), effects of kidney disease (p < 0.001), burden of kidney disease (p < 0.001), SF-12 physical composite (p = 0.001), and SF-12 mental composite (p < 0.001) of KDQOL. The results of multivariate analyses showed that dialysate Na (p = 0.003), and the number of missed sessions (p < 0.001) were independently correlated with the DRT.

Conclusions

Decreased dialysate Na, and increased number of missed sessions were predictors of prolonged DRT. Patients with prolonged DRT were associated with poorer quality of life. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to assess strategies to minimize the DRT and, perhaps, enhance clinical outcomes.

Trials registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04727281. First registration date: 27/01/2021.

A study of Factors Affecting Dialysis Recovery Time in Haemodialysis Patients in India

Background:

Patients on maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) often complain of fatigue and tiredness following haemodialysis sessions leading to poor compliance with the dialysis schedule. There is limited Indian data on dialysis recovery time (DRT). The present study was designed to assess the factors affecting DRT in our haemodialysis population.

Methods:

We recorded self-reported patient recovery times of 120 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, over three consecutive dialysis sessions by asking the question, 'How long does it take to recover from a dialysis session'? Data recorded included patient factors like age, sex, co-morbidities, Charlson comorbidity index score (CCI), dialysis vintage, duration of kidney disease, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), treatment factors like ultrafiltration rate (UFR), SpKt/V, blood pump speed, dialysate sodium, session length, pre and post HD blood pressure and laboratory parameters. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed with the KDQOL-SF v. 1.3 questionnaire. Results from the SF-36 score were summarised into the physical composite score (PCS), mental composite score (MCS) and kidney disease composite score (KDCS).

Results:

The mean age of the study population was 50.6 ± 12.6 years. Among the 120 patients, 77 (64.2%) were males. Thirty-nine patients (32.5%) were diabetic and 95 (79.1%) patients were hypertensive. The mean dialysis vintage of the study population was 26.1 ± 18.6 months, 41 (34.2%) patients reported DRT <2 h; 48 (40%) reported DRT between 2–6 h and 31 (25.8%) reported DRT >6 h. On multivariate regression analysis, higher IDWG, CCI score and UFR were associated with prolonged DRT. Reported DRT also inversely correlated with PCS (r = - 0.66), MCS (r = - 0.65) and KDCS (r = - 0.59) scores which was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

The present study showed that higher CCI scores, IDWG and UFR were associated with prolonged DRT in Indian haemodialysis patients and patients with longer recovery time had poor HRQoL. Interventions to reduce DRT need to be assessed in further trials in Indian MHD patients.

Do biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms affect post-dialysis recovery time? A prospective, descriptive study

The recovery time is defined as the time required to recover from the feelings of lassitude and fatigue. The daily activities of patients are affected by dialysis sessions, requiring significant time for patients to return to their routines. This situation implies a lower quality of life for HD patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms on post-dialysis recovery time in maintenance HD patients. This study was conducted at a private dialysis center during June and August 2019. Data were collected using the "Descriptive Characteristics Form" and the "Dialysis Symptom Index." "STROBE check-list" was used for the report of the study. The study was completed with 86 participants. The median post-dialysis recovery time was 240 min (interquartile range, 120-360 min), and female patients exhibit significantly higher recovery time than male patients. The median BMI was statistically significantly higher in patients whose post-dialysis recovery time was ≥240 min. Additional findings show that the post-dialysis recovery time was shortened by 0.230 times for male patients, while intradialytic hypotension (IDH) prolonged the median post-dialysis recovery time by 3.141 times. Factors underlying the IDH should be determined in order to eradicate the issue. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT04274556.

An Exercise Program for Peritoneal Dialysis Patients in the United States: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

People with end-stage kidney disease receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) are generally physically inactive and frail. Exercise studies in PD are scarce and currently there are no PD exercise programs in the United States. The primary objective of this study was to test the feasibility of a combined resistance and cardiovascular exercise program for PD patients under the care of a dedicated home dialysis center in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Parallel randomized controlled feasibility study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

PD patients were recruited from a single center and randomly assigned to the intervention (exercise; n = 18) or control (nonexercise; n = 18) group.

INTERVENTION

The intervention group received monthly exercise physiologist consultation, exercise prescription (resistance and aerobic exercise program using exercise bands), and 4 exercise support telephone calls over 12 weeks. The control group received standard care.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was study feasibility as measured by eligibility rates, recruitment rates, retention rates, adherence rates, adverse events, and sustained exercise rates. Secondary outcome measures were changes in physical function (sit-to-stand test, timed-up-and-go test, and pinch-strength tests) and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

From a single center with 75 PD patients, 57 (76%) were deemed eligible, resulting in a recruitment rate of 36 (63%) patients. Participants were randomly assigned into 2 groups of 18 (1:1). 10 patients discontinued the study (5 in each arm), resulting in 26 (72%) patients, 13 in each arm, completing the study. 10 of 13 (77%) intervention patients were adherent to the exercise program. A t test analysis of covariance found a difference between the treatment groups for the timed-up-and-go test (P = 0.04) and appetite (P = 0.04). No serious adverse events caused by the exercise program were reported.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, no blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

A resistance and cardiovascular exercise program appears feasible and safe for PD patients. We recommend that providers of PD therapy consider including exercise programs coordinated by exercise professionals to reduce the physical deterioration of PD patients.

FUNDING

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03980795.