Centre-level fluid management practices in the BISTRO trial and their lack of association with participant fluid status and blood pressure in non-anuric haemodialysis patients

Johal, Neena; Sharma, Radha; Belcher, John; Coyle, David; Lindley, Elizabeth J.; Keane, David; Caskey, Fergus J.; Dasgupta, Indranil; Davenport, Andrew; Farrington, Ken; Mitra, Sandip; Ormandy, Paula; Wilkie, Martin; Macdonald, Jamie; Solis-Trapala, Ivonne; Sim, Julius; Davies, Simon J.

Abstract

Introduction: Fluid assessment and management is a key aspect of good dialysis care and is affected by patient-level characteristics and potentially centre-level practices. In this secondary analysis of the BISTRO trial we wished to establish whether centre-level practices with the potential to affect fluid status were stable over the course of the trial and explore if they had any residual associations with participant’s fluid status. Methods: Two surveys (S) of fluid management practices were conducted in 32 participating centres during the trial, (S1: 2017–18 and S2: 2021–22). Domains interrogated included: dialysate sodium concentration, (D-[Na+]), fluid and salt intake, residual kidney function, use of diuretics, incremental start, approaches to fluid assessment, management and dialysate temperature, (D-oC). Associations of these practices with the closeness of the participant’s post-dialysis target weight to their normally hydrated weight, pre- and post-dialysis systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure, (DBP), were analysed using intra-class correlations and multilevel modelling with adjustment for visit, age, sex and comorbidity burden. Results: Variations in centre practices were reported but did not change during the trial, apart from some relaxation in salt and fluid restriction in S2. For our measures of fluid status, measured 2501 times in 439 non-anuric incident haemodialysis patients, centre-level intraclass correlations were extremely low, whereas patient-level correlations ranged between 0.12 and 0.47, strongest for pre- and post-dialysis-SBP, less so for post-dialysis-DBP. Multi-level analysis found no associations between D-[Na+], or assessment methods of fluid status. In S2, one centre, routinely using a D-Co of 35°C had more divergence between the target and normally hydrated weight, but this was not observed in S1, and no other associations were found. Conclusions: Centre-level fluid management practices were stable over the course of the BISTRO trial, and in contrast to patient-level factors, no centre-level associations were detected with fluid status or blood pressure. This may be because the trial imposed a standardised approach to fluid assessment in all trial participants who at least initially had residual kidney function, potentially over-riding the effects of other centre practices. Survey responses revealed substantial scope for developing and evaluating standardised protocols to optimise fluid management.

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Oct 24, 2024
• Online Publication Date: Nov 6, 2024
• Publication Date: Nov 6, 2024
• Deposit Date: Dec 6, 2024
• Publicly Available Date: Dec 6, 2024
• Journal: BMC Nephrology
• Electronic ISSN: 1471-2369
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 25
• Article Number: 398
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03837-y
• Keywords: Bioimpedance, Blood pressure, Comorbidity, Practice patterns, Fluid management, Hemodialysis