Whether hemodialysis patients should be allowed or even encouraged to eat during dialysis remains a controversial topic. This cross-over study aimed to evaluate the impact of feeding during dialysis on intradialytic blood pressure (BP) profile and dialysis adequacy in 26 patients receiving thrice-weekly, in-center hemodialysis. Over three consecutive mid-week dialysis sessions, intradialytic BP was monitored using the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Stolberg, Germany). Blood samples were also obtained for the determination of the urea reduction ratio (URR). At baseline, patients underwent dialysis without the provision of a meal. In phases A and B, a meal with either high-protein (1.5 gr/kg of body weight) or low-protein (0.7 gr/kg of body weight) content was administered 1 h after the initiation of dialysis. The sequence of meals (high-protein and low-protein or vice versa) was randomized. Average intradialytic systolic BP (SBP) was similar on all three occasions. However, compared with baseline, the standard deviation (SD) (11.7 ± 4.1 vs. 15.6 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.01), coefficient of variation (CV) (9.5 ± 3.7% vs. 12.4 ± 6.0%, p < 0.01) and average real variability (ARV) (9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 12.1 ± 5.2 mmHg, p < 0.01) of intradialytic SBP were higher in phase A. Similarly, compared with the baseline evaluation, all three indices of intradialytic SBP variability were higher in phase B (SD: 11.7 ± 4.1 vs. 14.1 ± 4.5 mmHg, p < 0.05; CV: 9.5 ± 3.7% vs. 11.1 ± 3.8%, p < 0.05; ARV: 9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 10.9 ± 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05). Compared with dialysis without a meal, the consumption of a high-protein or low-protein meal resulted in a lower URR (73.4 ± 4.3% vs. 65.7 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001 in phase A and 73.4 ± 4.3% vs. 67.6 ± 4.3%, p < 0.001 in phase B, respectively). In conclusion, in the present study, feeding during dialysis was associated with higher intradialytic SBP variability and reduced adequacy of the delivered dialysis.

Introduction: Prior studies conducted in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in the late 1990s provided considerably variable estimates of the prevalence and control of hypertension. The present study aimed to investigate the current state of hypertension management in this high-risk population. Methods: In 140 stable PD patients, we performed standardized automated office blood pressure (BP) measurements and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) using the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Germany). Office and ambulatory hypertension was diagnosed in patients with office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and 24-h BP ≥130/80 mm Hg, respectively. Patients treated with ≥1 BP-lowering medications were also classified as hypertensives. Results: The prevalence of office and ambulatory hypertension was 92.9% and 95%, respectively. In all, 92.1% of patients were being treated with an average of 2.4 BP-lowering medications daily. Adequate BP control was achieved in 52.3% and 38.3% of hypertensives by office BP and ABPM, respectively. The agreement between these 2 techniques in the identification of patients with BP levels above the diagnostic thresholds of hypertension was moderate (k-statistic: 0.524). In all, 5% of patients were normotensives with both techniques, 31.4% had controlled hypertension, 5% had white-coat hypertension, 19.3% had masked hypertension, and 39.3% had sustained hypertension. Isolated nocturnal hypertension was detected in 23.6% of patients, whereas no patient had isolated daytime hypertension. Conclusion: Among PD patients, hypertension is highly prevalent and remains often inadequately controlled. The use of ABPM enables the better classification of severity of hypertension and identification of isolated nocturnal hypertension, which is a common BP phenotype in the PD population.

Introduction: Intradialytic hypertension (IDHTN) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Patients with IDHTN have higher 44-h blood pressure (BP) than patients without this condition. Whether the excess risk in these patients is due to the BP rise during dialysis per se or on elevated 44-h BP or other comorbid conditions is uncertain. This study evaluated the association of IDHTN with cardiovascular events and mortality and the influence of ambulatory BP and other cardiovascular risk factors on these associations. Methods: 242 hemodialysis patients with valid 48-h ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph-NG) were followed for a median of 45.7 months. IDHTN was defined as: systolic BP (SBP) rise ≥10 mm Hg from pre- to post-dialysis and post-dialysis SBP ≥150 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, heart failure hospitalization, coronary or peripheral revascularization. Results: Cumulative freedom from both the primary and secondary endpoint was significantly lower for IDHTN patients (logrank-p = 0.048 and 0.022, respectively), corresponding to higher risks for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.566; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.001, 2.450]) and the composite cardiovascular outcome (HR = 1.675; 95% CI [1.071, 2.620]) in these individuals. However, the observed associations lost statistical significance after adjustment for 44-h SBP (HR = 1.529; 95% CI [0.952, 2.457] and HR = 1.388; 95% CI [0.866, 2.225], respectively). In the final model after additional adjustment for 44-h SBP, interdialytic weight gain, age, history of coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes, and 44-h pulse wave velocity, the association of IDHTN with the outcomes was also not significant and the respective HRs were 1.377 (95% CI [0.836, 2.268]) and 1.451 (95% CI [0.891, 2.364]). Conclusions: IDHTN patients had higher risk for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes but this risk is at least partly confounded by the elevated BP levels during the interdialytic period.

Liver dysfunction is highlighted by several studies as a relevant complication in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We present a pediatric patient with mild phenotype but transient severe liver injury. Hepatic damage should be considered even in mild cases of the disease to ensure prompt recognition and management.