Our Team

RESULTSWe utilized data from 693 patients who contributed 42 656 hemodialysis sessions and 355 693 intradialytic SBP measurements. IDH occurred in 16.2% of hemodialysis treatments. Our model predicted IDH 15-75 min in advance with an AUROC of 0.89. Top IDH predictors were the most recent intradialytic SBP and IDH rate, as well as mean nadir SBP of the previous 10 dialysis sessions.CONCLUSIONSReal-time prediction of IDH during an ongoing hemodialysis session is feasible and has a clinically actionable predictive performance. If and to what degree this predictive information facilitates the timely deployment of preventive interventions and translates into lower IDH rates and improved patient outcomes warrants prospective studies.BACKGROUNDIn maintenance hemodialysis patients, intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a frequent complication that has been associated with poor clinical outcomes. Prediction of IDH may facilitate timely interventions and eventually reduce IDH rates.METHODSWe developed a machine learning model to predict IDH in in-center hemodialysis patients 15-75 min in advance. IDH was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg. Demographic, clinical, treatment-related and laboratory data were retrieved from electronic health records and merged with intradialytic machine data that were sent in real-time to the cloud. For model development, dialysis sessions were randomly split into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used as a measure of the model's predictive performance.

RESULTSThe SEV group reported a 3.3-fold higher frequency of BSS stool types 1 and 2 (more likely constipated, p < 0.05), whereas the SFO group reported a 1.5-fold higher frequency of BSS stool types 5-7 (more likely loose stool and diarrhea, not significant). Participants in the SFO group showed a trend toward better adherence to phosphate binder therapy (SFO: 87.6% vs. SEV: 66.6%, not significant). UTOX, serum phosphorus, nutritional and liver function markers, and tryptophan were not different between the two groups.CONCLUSIONThere was no difference in the gut microbiome-derived UTOX levels between phosphate binders (SFO vs. SEV), despite SFO therapy resulting in fewer constipated participants. This pilot study may inform study design of future clinical trials and highlights the importance of including factors beyond bowel habits and their association with UTOX levels.INTRODUCTIONConstipation is prevalent in patients with kidney failure partly due to the use of medication, such as phosphate binders. We hypothesized that serum levels of gut microbiome-derived uremic toxins (UTOX) may be affected by the choice of phosphate binder putatively through its impact on colonic transit time. We investigated two commonly prescribed phosphate binders, sevelamer carbonate (SEV) and sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SFO), and their association with gut microbiome-derived UTOX levels in hemodialysis (HD) patients.METHODSWeekly blood samples were collected from 16 anuric HD participants during the 5-week observational period. All participants were on active phosphate binder monotherapy with either SFO or SEV for at least 4 weeks prior to enrollment. Eight UTOX (7 gut microbiome-derived) and tryptophan were quantified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Serum phosphorus, nutritional, and liver function markers were also measured. For each substance, weekly individual levels, the median concentration per participant, and differences between SFO and SEV groups were reported. Patient-reported bowel movements, by the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS), and pill usage were assessed weekly.

DISCUSSIONAlthough segmental eight-point bioimpedance techniques provided comparable TBW measurements not affected by standing over a period of 10-15 min, the ECW/TBW ratio appeared to be significantly lower in InBody compared with Seca and Hydra. Results from our study showed lack of agreement between different bioimpedance devices; direct comparison of ECW, ICW, and ECW/TBW between different devices should be avoided and clinicians should use the same device to track the fluid status in their HD population in a longitudinal direction.INTRODUCTIONSegmental eight-point bioimpedance has been increasingly used in practice. However, whether changes in bioimpedance analysis components before and after hemodialysis (HD) using this technique in a standing position is comparable to traditional whole-body wrist-to-ankle method is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the differences between two eight-point devices (InBody 770 and Seca mBCA 514) and one wrist-to-ankle (Hydra 4200) in HD patients and healthy subjects in a standing position.FINDINGSOverall, total body water (TBW) was not different between the three devices, but InBody showed lower extracellular water (ECW) and higher intracellular water (ICW) compared to the other two devices. When intradialytic weight loss was used as a surrogate for changes in ECW (∆ECW) and changes in TBW (∆TBW), ∆ECW was underestimated by Hydra (-0.79 ± 0.89 L, p < 0.01), InBody (-1.44 ± 0.65 L, p < 0.0001), and Seca (-0.32 ± 1.34, n.s.). ∆TBW was underestimated by Hydra (-1.14 ± 2.81 L, n.s.) and InBody (-0.52 ± 0.85 L, p < 0.05) but overestimated by Seca (+0.93 ± 3.55 L, n.s.).METHODSThirteen HD patients were studied pre- and post-HD, and 12 healthy subjects once. Four measurements were performed in the following order: InBody; Seca; Hydra; and InBody again. Electrical equivalent models by each bioimpedance method and the fluid volume estimates by each device were also compared.