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.

Background and Objectives: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) poses a common condition among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to the chronic stimulation of the parathyroid glands as a result of persistently low calcium levels. As a first option for medical treatment, vitamin D receptor analogs (VDRAs) and calcimimetic agents are generally used. Apart from cinacalcet, which is orally taken, in recent years, another calcimimetic agent, etelcalcetide, is being administered intravenously during dialysis. Materials and Methods: In a 5-year retrospective study between 2018 and 2023, 52 patients undergoing dialysis were studied. The aim of this study is to highlight the possible effects and/or benefits that intravenously administered calcimimetic agents have on CKD patients. A total of 34 patients (65.4%) received cinacalcet and etelcalcetide while parathormone (PTH) and calcium serum levels were monitored on a monthly basis. Results: A total of 29 out of 33 patients (87.9%) that received treatment with etelcalcetide showed a significant decrease in PTH levels, which rose up to 57% compared to the initial values. None of the included patients needed to undergo parathyroidectomy (PTx) due to either extremely high and persistent PTH levels or severe side effects of the medications. It is generally strongly advised that parathyroidectomies should be performed by an expert surgical team. In recent years, a significant decrease in parathyroidectomies has been recorded globally, a fact that is mainly linked to the constantly wider use of new calcimimetic agents. This decrease in parathyroidectomies has resulted in an important decrease in complications occurring in cervical surgeries (e.g., perioperative hemorrhage and nerve damage). Conslusions: Despite the fact that these surgical complications cannot be easily compared to the pharmaceutical side effects, the recorded decrease in parathyroidectomies is considered to be notable, especially in cases of relapse where a difficult reoperation would be considered based on previously published guidelines.