Rex L. Mahnensmith

Hyperkalemia in the elderly: drugs exacerbate impaired potassium homeostasis.

ObjectiveTo review the pathophysiology underlying the predisposition to hyperkalemia in the elderly; the medications that disrupt potassium balance and promote the development of hyperkalemia in the elderly; the prevention of hyperkalemia in elderly patients treated with potassium-altering medications; and the appropriate management of hyperkalemia when it develops.Methods and main resultsA MEDLINE search of the literature (1966–1996) using the terms hyperkalemia, drugs, elderly, and treatment was conducted and pertinent review articles, textbooks, and personal files were consulted. Elderly subjects appear to be predisposed to the development of hyperkalemia on the basis of both innate disturbances in potassium homeostasis and comorbid disease processes that impair potassium handling. Hyperkalemia in the elderly is most often precipitated by medications that impair cellular uptake or renal disposal of potassium. This electrolyte disorder is best prevented by recognition of at-risk physiology in the aged, avoidance of therapy with certain high-risk medications, and monitoring of plasma potassium concentration and renal function at intervals appropriate for the medication prescribed. Management of hyperkalemia entails identification of the clinical manifestations of severe hyperkalemia, stabilization of cardiac tissue, promotion of cellular potassium uptake, and ultimately removal of potassium from the body.ConclusionsGeriatric patients should be considered at risk of developing hyperkalemia, especially when they are prescribed certain medications. Potassium levels should be monitored at appropriate intervals when these patients are treated with potassium-altering medications. Appropriate management of hyperkalemia in the elderly can avoid life-threatening neuromuscular and cardiac complications.

Extreme Hyperphosphatemia and Acute Renal Failure after a Phosphorus-Containing Bowel Regimen

Phosphate intoxication, manifested by hypocalcemic tetany and acute renal failure, may complicate bowel-cleansing preparations which contain phosphate. These preparations are commonly used to prepare patients for various gastrointestinal procedures. Often, patients who receive these regimens are at increased risk of phosphate intoxication from diseases which slow gastrointestinal transit or decrease renal excretion (renal insufficiency). We present a patient who developed oliguric acute renal failure from severe phosphate intoxication associated with a phosphate-containing bowel-cleansing regimen.

Midodrine and cool dialysate are effective therapies for symptomatic intradialytic hypotension

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a morbid complication of hemodialysis (HD). Both midodrine, an oral selective alpha1 agonist, and cool dialysate have been reported as useful therapies for this problem. We performed this prospective crossover study to compare the efficacy of these two therapies, alone and in combination, for IDH. The study consisted of a control phase and three treatment phases: midodrine phase (10 mg oral dose pre-HD), cool dialysate phase (35.5 degrees C), and combination therapy phase (midodrine, 10 mg, and dialysate temperature, 35.5 degrees C). Each phase consisted of nine consecutive HD treatments. Eleven patients (six men, five women; mean age, 67.5 years) with known symptomatic IDH were studied. This cohort was followed up in terms of blood pressure measurements (pre-HD blood pressure, lowest intradialytic blood pressure, post-HD blood pressure), weights, laboratory values, and interventions for IDH. The lowest intradialytic blood pressures were significantly better with midodrine and cool dialysate compared with the control phase (systolic blood pressure [SBP], 103.9 +/- 4.1 [mean +/- standard error of the mean] and 102.6 +/- 2.9 v 90.6 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.001), as were the post-HD blood pressures (SBP, 116.9 +/- 4.0 and 118.2 +/- 3.5 v 109.0 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; P < 0.01). In addition, the lowest intradialytic blood pressures were significantly better with the combination phase compared with the control phase (SBP, 103.7 +/- 4.2 v 90.6 +/- 2.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), as were the post-HD blood pressures (SBP, 122.1 +/- 4.6 v 109.0 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; P < 0.01). There was a significant reduction in the number of nursing interventions performed and volume of saline infused for IDH with midodrine and cool dialysate compared with control. There was a trend toward amelioration of hypotensive symptoms with both therapies. Laboratory values, including Kt/V, did not change significantly with either midodrine or cool dialysate. This prospective study shows that both midodrine and cool dialysate are effective therapies for symptomatic IDH. There does not seem to be additional benefit when these two therapies are used in combination.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in chronic hemodialysis patients: Any evidence of erythropoietin resistance?

Exacerbation of anemia associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy has been noted to occur in patients with chronic renal failure, end-stage renal disease, and renal transplantation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to cause anemia through induction of decreased red blood cell production. There are data suggesting that ACE inhibitors may impair erythropoiesis via either suppression of angiotensin-mediated erythropoietin (EPO) production or bone marrow response to EPO. Patients on chronic hemodialysis receive recombinant human EPO (rHuEPO) for therapy of anemia and may also receive an ACE inhibitor for hypertension or congestive heart failure. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate whether patients treated with ACE inhibitors developed a more severe anemia or required a higher dose of rHuEPO to maintain a similar hematocrit. Ninety-five of 108 chronic hemodialysis patients met study criteria (hemodialysis for 4 months and no treatment with an ACE inhibitor for at least 4 months = group 1; therapy with an ACE inhibitor for at least 4 months = group 2). Forty-eight patients (group 1, n = 24; group 2, n = 24) were available for analysis after exclusion for a variety of factors. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, number of blood transfusions or hospital days, or other laboratory parameters. There was no statistically significant difference in average hematocrit between group 1 (33.5% +/- 3.9%) and group 2 (32.6% +/- 1.6%). Similarly, no significant difference was observed for the average rHuEPO dose/treatment between group 1 (3,272 +/- 1,532 IU/treatment; 50.69 +/- 26.94 IU/kg/treatment) and group 2 (3,401 +/- 1,009 IU/treatment; 52.87 +/- 19.38 IU/kg/treatment). These results suggest that ACE inhibitors do not significantly induce more severe anemia or alter rHuEPO response in chronic hemodialysis patients.

Ace inhibitors do not induce recombinant human erythropoietin resistance in hemodialysis patients

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may exacerbate anemia in patients with chronic renal failure, as well as in dialysis patients. To better answer this question, a prospective, crossover study was conducted to evaluate the effect of ACE inhibitors on recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) requirements in hemodialysis patients. Patients administered an ACE inhibitor when entering the study remained on this drug for the initial 4 months and were then switched to another antihypertensive agent for 4 more months. Patients not initially administered an ACE inhibitor were switched to lisinopril at 4 months. rHuEPO doses were adjusted using a sliding scale based on weekly laboratory hematocrit values. The inclusion criteria were met by 51 patients undergoing dialysis. Demographics were as follows: 61% were women, 64% were black, 46% had diabetes, average age was 53.2 +/- 13.3 years, and time on hemodialysis was 38.0 +/- 44.5 months. Thirty-three patients completed the study. Hematocrit averaged 32.7% +/- 1.9% while on ACE inhibitor therapy and 33.1% +/- 2.1% off ACE inhibitor therapy (P = 0.217). There was no difference in rHuEPO dose per treatment during each period (3,500 +/- 1,549 U on ACE inhibitor therapy versus 3,312 +/- 1,492 U off ACE inhibitor therapy; P = 0.300). No significant differences were found in degree of blood pressure control or various clinical and laboratory parameters that might be associated with rHuEPO resistance between the two periods. Similarly, no differences were found in hospitalization days, duration of infections, or transfusion requirements. These findings suggest that ACE inhibitors do not contribute to rHuEPO resistance in hemodialysis patients.

Intradialytic hypotension: Is midodrine beneficial in symptomatic hemodialysis patients?

Symptomatic hypotension during hemodialysis is a disabling complication in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, especially in certain groups of patients who are at higher risk for this problem. Autonomic dysfunction is thought to play a significant role. We evaluated the efficacy of midodrine, an oral agent with selective alpha-adrenergic agonist activity used in the treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, on 10 hemodialysis patients with persistent intradialytic hypotension. The patients were given a dose of midodrine (mean dose, 5.5 mg; range, 5 to 10 mg) 30 minutes before each hemodialysis session. We compared blood pressure, pulse, body weight, and laboratory values for 10 consecutive dialysis sessions off and on midodrine therapy. There was a statistically significant improvement in lowest intradialytic systolic blood pressure (from 96.6 to 114.7 mm Hg; P < 0.001), lowest intradialytic diastolic blood pressure (from 53.2 to 59.0 mm Hg; P = 0.002), lowest intradialytic mean arterial pressure (from 67.7 to 77.6 mm Hg; P < 0.001), posthemodialysis systolic blood pressure (from 116.5 to 127.1 mm Hg; P < 0.001), posthemodialysis diastolic blood pressure (from 66.6 to 69.7 mm Hg; P = 0.040), and posthemodialysis mean arterial pressure (from 83.2 to 88.8 mm Hg; P = 0.001) after patients were placed on midodrine. There also was a small but statistically significant decrease in intradialytic pulse rate (from 86.3 to 81 beats/min; P = 0.021) and posthemodialysis pulse rate (from 87.4 to 81.7 beats/min; P = 0.024) after initiation of midodrine therapy. There was no significant difference in any of the prehemodialysis blood pressure measurements or pulse rate off or on midodrine therapy. The improvements in intradialytic and posthemodialysis blood pressure were associated with a uniform subjective improvement in symptoms associated with dialysis hypotension, such as cramps, fatigue, dizziness, and weakness. Other than scalp paresthesia in one patient, no adverse effects were noted. Our results suggest that the administration of a single dose of midodrine before hemodialysis is an effective therapy for intradialytic hypotension. A prospective trial with adequate patient numbers and long-term follow-up would be useful to evaluate this drugs efficacy and safety profile in patients with ESRD.

Successful use of intraperitoneal daptomycin in the treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus peritonitis.

Peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis from such resistant organisms as vancomycin-resistant enterococci increasingly is occurring and is challenging to treat. We describe 2 cases of vancomycin-resistant entercoccus peritonitis successfully treated with intraperitoneal daptomycin. Both patients were on automated peritoneal dialysis therapy with culture-positive vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium peritonitis and were treated with 10 to 14 days of intraperitoneal daptomycin given every 4 hours through manual peritoneal dialysate exchanges. Despite the known degradation in dextrose solutions, intraperitoneal daptomycin was effective in clearing both infections. Neither patient experienced a relapse or repeated peritonitis. Additional studies of dosing and pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal daptomycin in the treatment of patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococcus peritonitis are needed.

Pericarditis Associated with Renal Failure: Evolution and Management

The presence of pericarditis in a patient with renal failure in the predialysis era was synonymous with impending death. Although the prognosis for affected patients has improved dramatically with advances in dialytic therapy, most practitioners will attest that pericarditis remains a significant source of morbidity and even mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The presentation of pericardial disease in ESRD patients varies, but may consist of chest discomfort of a pleuritic nature, dyspnea or orthopnea, cough, and less specific symptoms such as fever, musculoskeletal pain, malaise, and headaches. Although not uniformly present, physical findings such as a pericardial rub and low-grade fever are frequently seen. The presence of a pericardial effusion may produce signs such as pulsus paradoxus (defined as an inspiratory drop in systolic blood pressure of more than 10 mmHg), electrical alternans (a beat-tobeat alternation in voltage height on electrocardiogram), enlarged cardiac silhouette on chest radiograph, muffled heart sounds, hypotension, and evidence of venous congestion. However, a significant number of patients with ESRD treated with maintenance dialysis develop pericarditis with no accompanying symptoms or signs (1). Richard Bright first described the entity of pericarditis in uremic patients in a classic report in 1836 (2). Subsequent autopsy reports of patients with ESRD in the predialysis era indicated that nearly half had evidence of pericarditis on postmortem examination (3). Data from 10–20 years ago suggest that 11.8–21% of chronic dialysis patients would eventually develop pericardial disease (4–6), predictions that have not been borne out; pericarditis in the chronic dialysis patient is now rarely encountered. When pericarditis evolves in the context of renal failure, it presents an associated mortality of 1.5% (6). Treatment has traditionally involved increasing the frequency of dialysis—so-called “daily dialysis,” usually performed five to seven times per week. Nephrologists have found that pericarditis developing prior to commencement of maintenance dialysis in a uremic patient (or after only a short period of dialysis in such a patient) tends to respond well to this intense dialytic intervention. In contrast, daily dialysis produces a lower rate of resolution of pericarditis in patients receiving maintenance dialysis for a prolonged period of time; a surgical approach is frequently needed in this setting.

Effect of acute metabolic acidemia on renal electrolyte transport in man

The effect of acute NH4C1-induced metabolic acidemia on renal electrolyte excretion was examined in nine healthy subjects during steady state water diuresis. Following oral NH4C1, venous pH and bicarbonate concentration declined significantly (p less than 0.01) while inulin and PAH clearances remained unchanged. Mean sodium excretion (UNaV) increased from 142 +/- 16 mueq/min (mean +/- SEM) to 310 +/- 49 mueq/min (p less than 0.01) at 8 hr without change in plasma aldosterone or renin levels. Urine flow remained unchanged while CH2O/(CH2O + CCl) declined significantly, suggesting that acute metabolic acidemia inhibits sodium transport in the distal nephron. Similar results were observed in two subjects with central diabetes insipidus. Three subjects restudied following the ingestion of an equivalent amount of chloride administered as NaCl, failed to demonstrate a significant rise in UNaV. UKV fell acutely from 91 +/- 13 to 45 +/- 5 mueq/min (p less than 0.001) despite an increase in serum potassium concentration. No change in plasma insulin was observed. UCaV rose from 66 +/- 15 to 143 +/- 18 microgram/min and fractional excretion of calcium increased from 0.55 +/- 0.13 to 1.24 +/- 0.21% (p less than 0.001). Total serum calcium fell slightly, but ionized calcium rose from 3.99 +/- 0.05 to 4.30 +/- 0.03 mg/dl (p less than 0.001). No change in nephrogenous cyclic (cAMP) excretion was observed. In conclusion, acute metabolic acidemia in man (1) inhibits sodium reabsorption in the distal nephron independent of changes in plasma aldosterone concentration, filtered chloride load, or volume expansion; (2) inhibits potassium excretion despite a rise in serum potassium concentration; and (3) inhibits tubular calcium reabsorption independetn of changes in parathyroid hormone (as reflected by urinary cAMP).

A Quality Improvement Model for Optimizing Care of the Diabetic End‐Stage Renal Disease Patient

Persons with diabetes mellitus whose kidney disease progresses to end‐stage requiring dialysis have poorer outcomes compared to nondiabetic patients who commence maintenance dialysis. In the diabetic patient without renal failure, sustained strict glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure (BP) control can retard or thwart diabetic complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, coronary disease, and peripheral vascular disease. Achieving these outcomes requires multidisciplinary collaborative care. Best care of the diabetic person requires a dedicated clinician who knows the patient well, who closely follows the course of clinical problems, who provides frequent assessments and interventions, and who also directs care to other agencies, clinics, and specialized clinicians who provide expert focused evaluations and interventions aimed at specific clinical concerns. Diabetic patients who reach end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) have even greater clinical need of a dedicated principal care clinician than the diabetic patient who has minimal or moderate kidney disease. The diabetic patient with ESRD exhibits greater fluctuations in glucose and BP due to dialysis‐related diet patterns and fluid balances and has more active cardiovascular problems due to the combined influences of calcium, phosphorus, and lipid imbalances. These problems warrant exceptional care that includes frequent surveillance and monitoring with timely interventions if patient outcomes are to be improved. We present here a quality improvement model for optimizing care of the diabetic dialysis patient that relies on a dedicated practitioner who can evaluate and intervene on the multiple variables within and beyond the dialysis clinic that impact the patient’s health. We present three detailed clinical care pathways that the dedicated clinician can follow. We believe that patient outcomes can be improved with this approach that provides customized problem‐focused care, collaborates with the dialysis‐provider team, and extends and directs diabetic self‐care, home‐care, and specialized clinical care in the challenging areas of cardiac and peripheral vascular disease, glycemic control, lipid control, infection prevention, and BP management.