Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 and brachial hemodynamic parameters between dialysis modalities in patients with end-stage kidney disease

  • Nephrology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Major cardiovascular events (MACE) are the leading cause of mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease. Although hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are comparable in survival, patients with HD have a significantly higher risk of developing MACE. Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) is a cardiac biomarker, that does not vary with age, gender, and kidney function. This study aimed to compare arterial stiffness, fluid status, and sST2 levels, between patients with PD and those with in-center HD.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, which was conducted with 36 PD patients, 36 HD patients, and 36 age, and gender-matched healthy controls. We used noninvasive methods for the assessment of arterial stiffness and fluid status.

Results

The patients with PD overhydrated compared to HD patients and healthy control (p < 0.001, and p = 0.05, respectively). Patients with PD had higher central systolic blood pressure and central pulse pressure than patients with HD and the control group (p = 0.004, and p = 0.01; p < 0.001, and p = 0.004, respectively). HD patients had a significantly higher level of plasma sST2 level compared to PD patients and the control group (p = 0.03, and p = 0.005). HD as maintenance dialysis modality and dialysis vintage was associated with higher plasma sST2 concentration, and having a residual renal function in dialysis patients was related to the lower plasma sST2 concentration.

Conclusion

PD is associated with better sST2 levels even though higher volume load than HD. In addition, the loss of RRF may be the most important factor related to increased sST2.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Chiarelli G, Beaulieu M, Taylor P, Levin A, Holmes DT (2011) Elimination of BNP by peritoneal dialysis: investigation of analytical issues. Perit Dial Int 31:199–202

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Choi YB, Lee MJ, Park JT et al (2020) Prognostic value of soluble ST2 and soluble LR11 on mortality and cardiovascular events in peritoneal dialysis patients. BMC Nephrol 21:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Covic A, Ciumanghel A-I, Siriopol D et al (2017) Value of bioimpedance analysis estimated “dry weight” in maintenance dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inter Urol Nephrol 49:2231–2245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Elsayed ME, Morris AD, Li X, Browne LD, Stack AG (2020) Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 35:2172–2182

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Filali Y, Kesäniemi YA, Ukkola O (2021) Soluble ST2, a biomarker of fibrosis, is associated with multiple risk factors, chronic diseases and total mortality in the OPERA study. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 81:324–331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fischer EC, Zócalo Y, Galli C, Wray S, Bia D (2015) Arterial stiffness and renal replacement therapy: a controversial topic. Int J Nephrol 729609:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Franssen PM, Imholz BP (2010) Evaluation of the Mobil-O-graph new generation ABPM device using the ESH criteria. Blood Press Monit 15:229–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harmankaya O, Akalin N, Akay H et al (2015) Comparison of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Clinics 70:601–605

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kramer HJ, Townsend RR, Griffin K et al (2019) KDOQI US commentary on the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline. Am J Kidney Dis 73:437–458

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Li T, Wilcox CS, Lipkowitz MS, Gordon-Cappitelli J, Dragoi S (2019) Rationale and strategies for preserving residual kidney function in dialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 50:411–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mahmood U, Johnson DW, Fahim MA (2017) Cardiac biomarkers in dialysis. AIMS Genet 4:001–020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mimura T, Takenaka T, Kanno Y, Aoki H, Ohshima J, Suzuki H (2005) Comparison of changes in pulse wave velocity in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis one year after introduction of dialysis therapy. Adv Perit Dial 21:139–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ng JK-C, Li PK-T (2019) Fluid management and bioimpedance study in peritoneal dialysis. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 28:58–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng CH, Ong ZH, Sran HK, Wee TB (2021) Comparison of cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis. Int Urol Nephrol 53:1363–1367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nunan D, Fleming S, Hametner B, Wassertheurer S (2014) Performance of pulse wave velocity measured using a brachial cuff in a community setting. Blood Press Monit 19:315–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ortega LM, Materson BJ (2011) Hypertension in peritoneal dialysis patients: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment. J Am Soc Hypertens 5:128–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Savoj J, Becerra B, Kim JK et al (2019) Utility of cardiac biomarkers in the setting of kidney disease. Nephron 141:227–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Selby NM, Kazmi I (2019) Peritoneal dialysis has optimal intradialytic hemodynamics and preserves residual renal function: why isn’t it better than hemodialysis? Semin Dial 32:3–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma S, Sarnak MJ (2017) The global burden of reduced GFR: ESRD, CVD and mortality. Nat Rev Nephrol 13:447–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun C-Y, Li C-Y, Sung J-M et al (2020) A comparison of the risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study. Atherosclerosis 307:130–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Townsend RR, Chirinos JA, Parsa A et al (2010) Central pulse pressure in chronic kidney disease: a chronic renal insufficiency cohort ancillary study. Hypertension 56:518–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vaios V, Georgianos PI, Liakopoulos V, Agarwal R (2019) Assessment and management of hypertension among patients on peritoneal dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 14:297–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang AYM, Brimble KS, Brunier G et al (2015) ISPD cardiovascular and metabolic guidelines in adult peritoneal dialysis patients part I–assessment and management of various cardiovascular risk factors. Perit Dial Int 35:379–387

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang I-K, Lu C-Y, Lin C-L et al (2016) Comparison of the risk of de novo cardiovascular disease between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. Int J Cardiol 218:219–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang S, Wei F, Chen H, Wang Z, Zhang R, Jiang A (2020) The prognostic value of soluble ST2 in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis. Blood Purif 49:114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang L, Lin Y, Ye C et al (2011) Effects of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis on arterial stiffness compared with predialysis patients. Clin Nephrol 75:188–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Z, Shen B, Cao X et al (2017) Increased soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 level predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a prospective cohort study. Blood Purif 43:37–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding provided by Turkish Society of Hypertension and Kidney Disease.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nephrology Clinic, Sivas Numune State Hospital, TR58000, Sivas, Turkey

    Hacı hasan Yeter

  2. Internal Medicine Clinic, Mus State Hospital, Mus, Turkey

    Ceren Karacalik

  3. Internal Medicine Clinic, Yozgat State Hospital, Yozgat, Turkey

    Esra Eraslan

  4. Internal Medicine Clinic, Halil Sivgin Cubuk State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Halil Durantas

  5. Department of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Omer Faruk Akcay & Ulver Derici

  6. Department of Medical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey

    Kursat Derici

Authors
  1. Hacı hasan Yeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ceren Karacalik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esra Eraslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Halil Durantas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Omer Faruk Akcay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kursat Derici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ulver Derici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hacı hasan Yeter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and all expenditures of the study were covered by the Turkish Society of Hypertension and Kidney Disease.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeter, H.h., Karacalik, C., Eraslan, E. et al. Comparison of soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 and brachial hemodynamic parameters between dialysis modalities in patients with end-stage kidney disease. Int Urol Nephrol 55, 1335–1342 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03443-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03443-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation