Michael V. Rocco

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week

BACKGROUND In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to determine whether increasing the frequency of in-center hemodialysis would result in beneficial changes in left ventricular mass, self-reported physical health, and other intermediate outcomes among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to undergo hemodialysis six times per week (frequent hemodialysis, 125 patients) or three times per week (conventional hemodialysis, 120 patients) for 12 months. The two coprimary composite outcomes were death or change (from baseline to 12 months) in left ventricular mass, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and death or change in the physical-health composite score of the RAND 36-item health survey. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance; self-reported depression; laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism, and anemia; blood pressure; and rates of hospitalization and of interventions related to vascular access. RESULTS Patients in the frequent-hemodialysis group averaged 5.2 sessions per week; the weekly standard Kt/V(urea) (the product of the urea clearance and the duration of the dialysis session normalized to the volume of distribution of urea) was significantly higher in the frequent-hemodialysis group than in the conventional-hemodialysis group (3.54±0.56 vs. 2.49±0.27). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with significant benefits with respect to both coprimary composite outcomes (hazard ratio for death or increase in left ventricular mass, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.82; hazard ratio for death or a decrease in the physical-health composite score, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92). Patients randomly assigned to frequent hemodialysis were more likely to undergo interventions related to vascular access than were patients assigned to conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.73). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with improved control of hypertension and hyperphosphatemia. There were no significant effects of frequent hemodialysis on cognitive performance, self-reported depression, serum albumin concentration, or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. CONCLUSIONS Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodialysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00264758.).

Effect of clopidogrel on early failure of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT The arteriovenous fistula is the preferred type of vascular access for hemodialysis because of lower thrombosis and infection rates and lower health care expenditures compared with synthetic grafts or central venous catheters. Early failure of fistulas due to thrombosis or inadequate maturation is a barrier to increasing the prevalence of fistulas among patients treated with hemodialysis. Small, inconclusive trials have suggested that antiplatelet agents may reduce thrombosis of new fistulas. OBJECTIVE To determine whether clopidogrel reduces early failure of hemodialysis fistulas. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 9 US centers composed of academic and community nephrology practices in 2003-2007. Eight hundred seventy-seven participants with end-stage renal disease or advanced chronic kidney disease were followed up until 150 to 180 days after fistula creation or 30 days after initiation of dialysis, whichever occurred later. INTERVENTION Participants were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel (300-mg loading dose followed by daily dose of 75 mg; n = 441) or placebo (n = 436) for 6 weeks starting within 1 day after fistula creation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was fistula thrombosis, determined by physical examination at 6 weeks. The secondary outcome was failure of the fistula to become suitable for dialysis. Suitability was defined as use of the fistula at a dialysis machine blood pump rate of 300 mL/min or more during 8 of 12 dialysis sessions. RESULTS Enrollment was stopped after 877 participants were randomized based on a stopping rule for intervention efficacy. Fistula thrombosis occurred in 53 (12.2%) participants assigned to clopidogrel compared with 84 (19.5%) participants assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.97; P = .018). Failure to attain suitability for dialysis did not differ between the clopidogrel and placebo groups (61.8% vs 59.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.17; P = .40). CONCLUSION Clopidogrel reduces the frequency of early thrombosis of new arteriovenous fistulas but does not increase the proportion of fistulas that become suitable for dialysis. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00067119.

Serum β-2 Microglobulin Levels Predict Mortality in Dialysis Patients: Results of the HEMO Study

In the randomized Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study, chronic high-flux dialysis, as defined by higher beta-2 microglobulin (beta(2)M) clearance, compared with low-flux dialysis did not significantly alter all-cause mortality in the entire cohort but was associated with lower mortality in long-term dialysis patients. This analysis examined the determinants of serum beta(2)M levels and the associations of serum beta(2)M levels or dialyzer beta(2)M clearance with mortality. In a multivariable regression model that examined 1704 patients, baseline residual kidney urea clearance and dialyzer beta(2)M clearance were strong predictors of predialysis serum beta(2)M levels at 1 mo of follow-up, with regression coefficients of -7.21 (+/-0.69 SE) mg/L per ml/min per 35 L urea volume (P < 0.0001) and -1.94 (+/-0.30) mg/L per ml/min (P < 0.0001),respectively. In addition, black race and baseline years on dialysis correlated positively whereas age, diabetes, serum albumin, and body mass index correlated negatively with serum beta(2)M levels (P < 0.05). In time-dependent Cox regression models, mean cumulative predialysis serum beta(2)M levels but not dialyzer beta(2)M clearance were associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk = 1.11 per 10-mg/L increase in beta(2)M level; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.19; P = 0.001), after adjustment for residual kidney urea clearance and number of prestudy years on dialysis. This association is supportive of the potential value of beta(2)M as a marker to guide chronic hemodialysis therapy.

The effects of frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis: the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Nocturnal Trial

Prior small studies have shown multiple benefits of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis compared to conventional three times per week treatments. To study this further, we randomized 87 patients to three times per week conventional hemodialysis or to nocturnal hemodialysis six times per week, all with single-use high-flux dialyzers. The 45 patients in the frequent nocturnal arm had a 1.82-fold higher mean weekly stdKt/V(urea), a 1.74-fold higher average number of treatments per week, and a 2.45-fold higher average weekly treatment time than the 42 patients in the conventional arm. We did not find a significant effect of nocturnal hemodialysis for either of the two coprimary outcomes (death or left ventricular mass (measured by MRI) with a hazard ratio of 0.68, or of death or RAND Physical Health Composite with a hazard ratio of 0.91). Possible explanations for the left ventricular mass result include limited sample size and patient characteristics. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance, self-reported depression, laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism and anemia, blood pressure and rates of hospitalization, and vascular access interventions. Patients in the nocturnal arm had improved control of hyperphosphatemia and hypertension, but no significant benefit among the other main secondary outcomes. There was a trend for increased vascular access events in the nocturnal arm. Thus, we were unable to demonstrate a definitive benefit of more frequent nocturnal hemodialysis for either coprimary outcome.

Effects of High-Flux Hemodialysis on Clinical Outcomes: Results of the HEMO Study

Among the 1846 patients in the HEMO Study, chronic high-flux dialysis did not significantly affect the primary outcome of the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate or the main secondary composite outcomes, including the rates of first cardiac hospitalization or ACM, first infectious hospitalization or ACM, first 15% decrease in serum albumin levels or ACM, or all non-vascular access-related hospitalizations. The high-flux intervention, however, seemed to be associated with reduced risks of specific cardiac-related events. The relative risks (RR) for the high-flux arm, compared with the low-flux arm, were 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.99] for cardiac death and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00) for the composite of first cardiac hospitalization or cardiac death. Also, the effect of high-flux dialysis on ACM seemed to vary, depending on the duration of prior dialysis. This report presents secondary analyses to further explore the relationship between the flux intervention and the duration of dialysis with respect to various outcomes. The patients were stratified into a short-duration group and a long-duration group, on the basis of the mean duration of dialysis of 3.7 yr before randomization. In the subgroup that had been on dialysis for >3.7 yr, randomization to high-flux dialysis was associated with lower risks of ACM (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001), the composite of first albumin level decrease or ACM (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.005), and cardiac deaths (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.92; P = 0.016), compared with low-flux dialysis. No significant differences were observed in outcomes related to infection for either duration subgroup, however, and the trends for beneficial effects of high-flux dialysis on ACM rates were considerably weakened when the years of dialysis during the follow-up phase were combined with the prestudy years of dialysis in the analysis. For the subgroup of patients with <3.7 yr of dialysis before the study, assignment to high-flux dialysis had no significant effect on any of the examined clinical outcomes. These data suggest that high-flux dialysis might have a beneficial effect on cardiac outcomes. Because these results are derived from multiple statistical comparisons, however, they must be interpreted with caution. The subgroup results that demonstrate that patients with different durations of dialysis are affected differently by high-flux dialysis are interesting and require further study for confirmation.

International Society of Nephrology's 0by25 initiative for acute kidney injury (zero preventable deaths by 2025): a human rights case for nephrology

Executive summary Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major contributor to poor patient outcomes. AKI occurs in about 13·3 million people per year, 85% of whom live in the developing world, and, although no direct link between AKI and death has yet been shown, AKI is thought to contribute to about 1·7 million deaths every year. The course of AKI varies with the setting in which it occurs, and the severity and duration of AKI aff ects outcomes such as dialysis requirement, renal functional recovery, and survival. Recognition is increasing for the eff ect of AKI on patients, and the resulting societal burden from its longterm eff ects, including development of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease needing dialysis or trans plantation. Few systematic eff orts to manage (prevent, diagnose, and treat) AKI have been put in place and few resources have been allocated to inform health-care professionals and the public of the importance of AKI as a preventable and treatable disease. Several factors have contributed to the paucity of information. Most importantly, there have been few population-level epidemiological studies in several regions of the world. Diffi culties in defi nition of the incidence of AKI are especially evident in searches for data from low-income and middle-income countries, where more than 85% of the world’s population resides. No nationwide data collection systems are available, and data are usually from isolated centres and probably largely underestimate the true extent of AKI because they mostly do not include patients with AKI who were not able to reach a hospital for treatment. A recent metaanalysis that included 312 cohort studies and more than 49 million patients shows a scarcity of data from Africa and large parts of southeast Asia. We did an updated meta-analysis that used the most recent KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) defi nitions, which confi rms the high incidence and resulting outcomes of AKI, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, for which data were previously absent. The strong relation between the severity of AKI and consequent mortality is reiterated by our fi ndings and is evident across heterogeneous populations and specifi c disease cohorts. However, large gaps remain in knowledge about the factors that aff ect the geographical variation of AKI and poor outcomes. Many diff erences exist in the aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of AKI across the world. In high-income countries, AKI develops mainly in patients in hospitals. In low-income and middle-income countries, AKI occurs mainly in the community setting in acute illness, usually in association with diarrhoeal states and dehydration, infections such as malaria, and toxins (venoms and poisons). Public health issues (eg, contaminated water, poor sanitation, endemic infections such as malaria and dengue fever, venomous snakes, and toxic traditional medicines) and socioeconomic factors (eg, availability of health-care facilities) aff ect the epidemiology of AKI. Additionally availability of trained personnel and access to diagnostic tests and dialysis aff ect practice patterns and impose barriers to care. The extent to which these factors contribute to mortality and non-recovery of renal function has not been quantifi ed. AKI is potentially preventable and treatable with timely intervention, but there continues to be a high human burden. Which specifi c factors account for the poor outcomes and to what extent variations in care delivery contribute are unclear. The ability to provide lifesaving treatments for AKI provides a compelling argument to consider therapy for AKI as much of a basic right as it is to give antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV in low-resource regions, especially because care needs only be given for a Published Online March 13, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(15)60126-X

KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy: 2015 Update

The National Kidney Foundations Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) has provided evidence-based guidelines for all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and related complications since 1997. The 2015 update of the KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy is intended to assist practitioners caring for patients in preparation for and during hemodialysis. The literature reviewed for this update includes clinical trials and observational studies published between 2000 and March 2014. New topics include high-frequency hemodialysis and risks; prescription flexibility in initiation timing, frequency, duration, and ultrafiltration rate; and more emphasis on volume and blood pressure control. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and specific suggestions are provided for future research.

The APOL1 Gene and Allograft Survival after Kidney Transplantation

Coding variants in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) are strongly associated with nephropathy in African Americans (AAs). The effect of transplanting kidneys from AA donors with two APOL1 nephropathy risk variants is unknown. APOL1 risk variants were genotyped in 106 AA deceased organ donors and graft survival assessed in 136 resultant kidney transplants. Cox‐proportional hazard models tested for association between time to graft failure and donor APOL1 genotypes. The mean follow‐up was 26.4 ± 21.8 months. Twenty‐two of 136 transplanted kidneys (16%) were from donors with two APOL1 nephropathy risk variants. Twenty‐five grafts failed; eight (32%) had two APOL1 risk variants. A multivariate model accounting for donor APOL1 genotype, overall African ancestry, expanded criteria donation, recipient age and gender, HLA mismatch, CIT and PRA revealed that graft survival was significantly shorter in donor kidneys with two APOL1 risk variants (hazard ratio [HR] 3.84; p = 0.008) and higher HLA mismatch (HR 1.52; p = 0.03), but not for overall African ancestry excluding APOL1. Kidneys from AA deceased donors harboring two APOL1 risk variants failed more rapidly after renal transplantation than those with zero or one risk variants. If replicated, APOL1 genotyping could improve the donor selection process and maximize long‐term renal allograft survival.

The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Background: High blood pressure is an important public health concern because it is highly prevalent and a risk factor for adverse health outcomes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, decompensated heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and decline in cognitive function. Observational studies show a progressive increase in risk associated with blood pressure above 115/75 mm Hg. Prior research has shown that reducing elevated systolic blood pressure lowers the risk of subsequent clinical complications from cardiovascular disease. However, the optimal systolic blood pressure to reduce blood pressure–related adverse outcomes is unclear, and the benefit of treating to a level of systolic blood pressure well below 140 mm Hg has not been proven in a large, definitive clinical trial. Purpose: To describe the design considerations of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the baseline characteristics of trial participants. Methods: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compares two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure: one targets the standard target of <140 mm Hg, and the other targets a more intensive target of <120 mm Hg. Enrollment focused on volunteers of age ≥50 years (no upper limit) with an average baseline systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and evidence of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, 10-year Framingham cardiovascular disease risk score ≥15%, or age ≥75 years. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruitment also targeted three pre-specified subgroups: participants with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2), participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, and participants 75 years of age or older. The primary outcome is first the occurrence of a myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular disease death. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, decline in kidney function or development of end-stage renal disease, incident dementia, decline in cognitive function, and small-vessel cerebral ischemic disease. Results: Between 8 November 2010 and 15 March 2013, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruited and randomized 9361 people at 102 clinics, including 3331 women, 2648 with chronic kidney disease, 1877 with a history of cardiovascular disease, 3962 minorities, and 2636 ≥75 years of age. Limitations: Although the overall recruitment target was met, the numbers recruited in the high-risk subgroups were lower than planned. Conclusions: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will provide important information on the risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure treatment targets in a diverse sample of high-risk participants, including those with prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and those aged ≥75 years.