1.
Intradialytic Nutrition and Hemodialysis Prescriptions: A Personalized Stepwise Approach.
Piccoli, GB, Lippi, F, Fois, A, Gendrot, L, Nielsen, L, Vigreux, J, Chatrenet, A, D'Alessandro, C, Cabiddu, G, Cupisti, A
Nutrients. 2020;(3)
Abstract
Dialysis and nutrition are two sides of the same coin-dialysis depurates metabolic waste that is typically produced by food intake. Hence, dietetic restrictions are commonly imposed in order to limit potassium and phosphate and avoid fluid overload. Conversely, malnutrition is a major challenge and, albeit to differing degrees, all nutritional markers are associated with survival. Dialysis-related malnutrition has a multifactorial origin related to uremic syndrome and comorbidities but also to dialysis treatment. Both an insufficient dialysis dose and excessive removal are contributing factors. It is thus not surprising that dialysis alone, without proper nutritional management, often fails to be effective in combatting malnutrition. While composite indexes can be used to identify patients with poor prognosis, none is fully satisfactory, and the definitions of malnutrition and protein energy wasting are still controversial. Furthermore, most nutritional markers and interventions were assessed in hemodialysis patients, while hemodiafiltration and peritoneal dialysis have been less extensively studied. The significant loss of albumin in these two dialysis modalities makes it extremely difficult to interpret common markers and scores. Despite these problems, hemodialysis sessions represent a valuable opportunity to monitor nutritional status and prescribe nutritional interventions, and several approaches have been tried. In this concept paper, we review the current evidence on intradialytic nutrition and propose an algorithm for adapting nutritional interventions to individual patients.
2.
Whither goest Kt/V?
Gotch, FA, Sargent, JA, Keen, ML
Kidney international. Supplement. 2000;:S3-18
Abstract
Uremia is characterized by gross contamination of body water with a wide spectrum of retained solutes normally excreted by the kidney. The rationale for dialysis therapy is that these retained solutes have concentration-dependent toxicity, which can be ameliorated through removal by dialysis. Apart from the well-established clinical consequences of abnormalities in fluid, electrolyte, acid base metabolism, and retained beta 2-microglobulin (beta 2 m), there is very little understanding of solute-specific uremic toxicity. Evidence is reviewed to demonstrate the following: (1) Many aspects of the uremic syndrome are controlled by adequate dialysis of low molecular weight solutes. (2) Urea can serve as a generic molecule to quantitate the fractional clearance of body water by dialysis (Kt/V) of retained low molecular weight solutes. (3) Urea has no concentration-dependent toxicity, and the generation rate of putative toxic low molecular weight solutes is not proportional to urea generation. The major clinical consequences and controversies stemming from these interrelationships are reviewed. Kinetic approaches to determine Kt/V dose equivalency between intermittent and continuous dialysis therapy are reviewed. We conclude that Kt/V can and will be generalized to describe the kinetics of other solutes such as beta2m as our knowledge of uremic toxicity grows, and hence, it is predicted that it will goeth and goeth and goeth.