CKD is common and frequently complicated with hypertension both predialysis and in ESKD. As a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease in this high-risk population, treatment of hypertension in CKD is important. We review the mechanisms and indications for the major classes of antihypertensive drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-adrenergic blocking agents, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, direct vasodilators, and centrally acting α-agonists. Recent evidence suggests that β-adrenergic blocking agents may have a greater role in patients on dialysis and that thiazide diuretics may have a greater role in patients with advanced CKD. We conclude with sharing our general prescribing algorithm for both patients with predialysis CKD and patients with ESKD on dialysis.
Intravenous iron therapy for chronic anemia management is largely driven by dosing protocols that differ in intensity with respect to dosing approach (i.e., dose, frequency, and duration). Little is known about the safety of these protocols.
Design, setting, participants, & measurements
Using clinical data from a large United States dialysis provider linked to health care utilization data from Medicare, we constructed a cohort of patients with ESKD aged ≥65 years who initiated and continued center-based hemodialysis for ≥90 days between 2009 and 2012, and initiated at least one of the five common intravenous iron administration strategies; ranked by intensity (the amount of iron given at moderate-to-high iron indices), the order of strategies was 3 (least intensive), 2 (less intensive), 1 (reference), 4 (more intensive), and 5 (most intensive). We estimated the effect of continuous exposure to these strategies on cumulative risks of mortality and infection-related events with dynamic Cox marginal structural models.
Of 13,249 eligible patients, 1320 (10%) died and 1627 (12%) had one or more infection-related events during the 4-month follow-up. The most and least commonly initiated strategy was strategy 2 and 5, respectively. Compared with the reference strategy 1, more intensive strategies (4 and 5) demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality (e.g., most intensive strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.8% to 2.1%; 120-day risk difference: 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.0% to 5.6%). Similarly, higher risks were observed for infection-related morbidity and mortality among more intensive strategies (e.g., strategy 5: 60-day risk difference: 1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 2.6%; 120-day risk difference: 4.3%; 95% CI, 2.2% to 6.8%). Less intensive strategies (2 and 3) demonstrated lower risks of all-cause mortality and infection-related events.
Among dialysis patients surviving 90 days, subsequent intravenous iron administration strategies promoting more intensive iron treatment at moderate-to-high iron indices levels are associated with higher risks of mortality and infection-related events.
Hypernatremia is common in hospitalized, critically ill patients. Although there are no clear guidelines on sodium correction rate for hypernatremia, some studies suggest a reduction rate not to exceed 0.5 mmol/L per hour. However, the data supporting this recommendation and the optimal rate of hypernatremia correction in hospitalized adults are unclear.
Design, setting, participants, & measurements
We assessed the association of hypernatremia correction rates with neurologic outcomes and mortality in critically ill patients with hypernatremia at admission and those that developed hypernatremia during hospitalization. We used data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III and identified patients with hypernatremia (serum sodium level >155 mmol/L) on admission (n=122) and hospital-acquired (n=327). We calculated different ranges of rapid correction rates (>0.5 mmol/L per hour overall and >8, >10, and >12 mmol/L per 24 hours) and utilized logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to examine association with outcomes.
We had complete data on 122 patients with severe hypernatremia on admission and 327 patients who developed hospital-acquired hypernatremia. The difference in in-hospital 30-day mortality proportion between rapid (>0.5 mmol/L per hour) and slower (≤0.5 mmol/L per hour) correction rates were not significant either in patients with hypernatremia at admission with rapid versus slow correction (25% versus 28%; P=0.80) or in patients with hospital-acquired hypernatremia with rapid versus slow correction (44% versus 40%; P=0.50). There was no difference in aOR of mortality for rapid versus slow correction in either admission (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.5 to 3.7) or hospital-acquired hypernatremia (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3). Manual chart review of all suspected chronic hypernatremia patients, which included all 122 with hypernatremia at admission, 128 of the 327 hospital-acquired hypernatremia, and an additional 28 patients with ICD-9 codes for cerebral edema, seizures and/or alteration of consciousness, did not reveal a single case of cerebral edema attributable to rapid hyprnatremia correction.
We did not find any evidence that rapid correction of hypernatremia is associated with a higher risk for mortality, seizure, alteration of consciousness, and/or cerebral edema in critically ill adult patients with either admission or hospital-acquired hypernatremia.