Abstract
Purpose
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effect of low dialysate sodium concentration on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) in chronic hemodialysis patients.
Methods
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were English language papers published in a peer-reviewed journal and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies in adult patients (over 18 years of age), (2) included patients on chronic hemodialysis since at least 6 months; (3) compared standard (138–140 mmol/l) or high (> 140 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration with low (< 138 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration; (4) Included one outcome of interest: interdialytic weight gain.
Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the quality of reporting for each study was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool of Controlled Intervention Studies of the National Institutes of Health. The quality of reporting of each cross-over study was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for cross-over trials as proposed by Ding et al.
Results
Nineteen studies (710 patients) were included in the analysis: 15 were cross-over and 4 parallel randomized controlled studies. In cross-over studies, pooled analysis revealed that dialysate sodium concentration reduced IDWG with a pooled MD of − 0.40 kg (95% CI − 0.50 to − 0.30; p < 0.001). The systematic review of four parallel, randomized, studies revealed that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration was associated with a significant reduction of the IDWG in two studies, sustained and almost significant (p = 0.05) reduction in one study, and not significant reduction in one study.
Conclusion
Low dialysate sodium concentration reduces the IDWG in prevalent patients on chronic hemodialysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In many patients on chronic hemodialysis, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) is greater than 4.0–4.5% of dry weight, the value recommended by the international guidelines [1]. It is well known that a high IDWG may lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and cerebrovascular diseases, with ultimately a higher risk of mortality [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Furthermore, IDWG is the cause of supplementary weekly dialysis sessions with consequent reduction of quality of life and a significant increase of economic costs.
An elevate intake of fluids and/or of foods contributes to high IDWG in patients on chronic hemodialysis. High intake of fluid is secondary to the disturbing and constant presence of thirst in such patients. Nevertheless, the adherence to fluid intake regimen is very difficult and frustrating, and rarely is successful [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].
The limitation of the IDWG is a challenge both for the patients and the physicians and is based on various types of interventions such the use of low dialysate sodium concentrations or patient level interventions [19].
The use of a low dialysate sodium concentration increases the removal of sodium during the dialytic session, and this leads to a reduced content of sodium in the body. As consequence, thirst is significantly reduced as well as the water intake in the interdialytic period.
Interestingly, it has been shown recently, that IDWG decreased significantly in Europe and in the USA and this was, at least in part, due to the use of a reduced sodium dialysate concentration during the dialytic session [2].
A few studies have investigated the role of a lower sodium concentration in the dialysate in reducing the IDWG in patients with chronic hemodialysis and with conflicting results [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. In addition, most of these studies included a small number of patients and the number of prospective and randomized studies was limited. [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of low dialysate sodium concentration in reducing IDWG in prevalent chronic hemodialysis patients.
Methods
This analysis was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews in Health and Social Care (PROSPERO) (CRD42022359763).
Eligibility criteria
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were English language papers published in a peer-reviewed journal and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) primary research studies in adult patients (over 18 years of age), (2) included patients with end-stage renal disease on chronic hemodialysis since at least 6 months; (3) compared standard (138–140 mmol/l) or high (> 140 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration with low (< 138 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration; (4) Included one outcome of interest: interdialytic weight gain. We excluded studies on pediatric patients, pre-dialysis CKD patients, acute kidney injury patients, ESRD patients with other renal replacement therapy modalities, such as peritoneal dialysis and transplant.
Information sources and search strategy
A comprehensive search to identify crossover and/or parallel randomized trials studies on effects of lower dialysate concentration on IDWG in patients on chronic hemodialysis was performed. Searches were run on January 22, 2023. The following databases were searched for relevant studies: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search terms and mesh headings included “hemodialysis/haemodialysis” AND (“weight” OR “gain” OR “weight gain” OR “interdialytic weight gain”) AND (“salt” OR “NaCl” OR “fluid” OR “water” OR “sodium”) AND “dialysate” as the search terms. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
Selection process and data collection process
Two authors independently reviewed the manuscripts against the eligibility criteria and quality assessment tools. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts, and full texts of potential studies were retrieved for further appraisal. In case of disagreement between the two authors, a third author was referred. We also performed a manual search for eligible studies by checking the reference lists of relevant original and review articles. Conference abstracts and literature reviews were excluded. Similarly, studies not comparing standard and low sodium dialysate concentration were excluded. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus upon discussion with another co-author. Data extraction tables (Tables 1 and 2) were compiled to record study characteristics and participant characteristics.
Data items
The outcome for which data was sought was IDWG.
Study risk of bias assessment
The quality of reporting for each study was performed by two researchers (GP, MA) using the Quality Assessment Tool of Controlled Intervention Studies of the National Institutes of Health [42].
The quality of reporting of each cross-over study was performed by two researchers (GP, MA) using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for cross-over trials as proposed by Ding et al. [43].
Statistical analysis / synthesis methods
The primary outcome was the mean IDWG and compared in terms of the mean difference (MD).
Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed with Cochran’s Q and quantified with Higgins I2 statistic [44,45,46,47,48]. Because of low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), data were analyzed using a fixed effect (Mantel–Haenszel method) model approach [45].
Publication bias was assessed graphically using funnel plots. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 22.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, United States) and Microsoft Excel (Version 16.45).
Certainty assessment
Overall evidence was qualified using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group guidelines for both cross-over and parallel-group observational studies. Results of the quality of evidence criteria are reported in Tables 3 and 4.
Results
Search results (study selection)
A total of 1240 publications were identified via electronic databases. After screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts, 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis. The PRISMA flowchart is shown in Fig. 1. Of the 19 included studies, 15 were cross-over studies and 4 were parallel groups studies. We divided the analysis into two sections: (1) comparison of standard and low dialysate sodium concentration through crossover prospective studies comprising 15 studies; (2) comparison of standard and low dialysate sodium concentration through prospective randomized parallel studies, comprising 4 studies.
Study characteristics
Comparison of standard and low sodium dialysate concentration through crossover prospective studies
Overall, 483 patients were included. The number of patients in each individual study ranged from 7 to 92. The used dialysate sodium concentrations (mEq/l) varied largely: 138 vs 141 in one study, 135 vs 140 in two studies, 137 vs 140 in one study, 130 vs 140 in one study, 136 vs 140 in two studies, 135 vs 138 in one study, 135 vs 143 in one study, 132 vs 144 in one study, 134 vs 144 in one study, 131 vs 146 in one study, 138 vs individualized sodium concentration in two studies, 140 vs individualized sodium concentration in one study. Description of the included studies is presented in Table 1. The cross-over studies differed for some variables (age: ranged from 45.6 to 67 years; sex distribution [male%]: ranged 48.1–93.7; sample size: ranged from 10 to 92 patients) but not for others (use of HDF absent in all studies; use of diuretics absent in all studies but one; wash out absent in all studies but one; report of renal residual function absent in all studies but two; use of dietary counseling absent in all studies; data on hospitalization and mortality absent in all studies).
Comparison of standard and low sodium dialysate concentration through prospective randomized parallel studies
Overall, 247 patients were included. The number of patients in each individual study ranged from 38 to 99. The used sodium dialysate concentrations (mEq/l) were: 135 vs 138 in one study, 136 vs 138 in one study, 135 vs 140 in one study, and 137 vs 140 in one study. Description of the included studies is presented in Table 2. The randomized, parallel studies differed for some variables (age: ranged from 44 to 65 years; sex distribution [male%]: ranged from 45.6 to 67.6; sample size: ranged from 38 to 99 patients) but not for others (use of HDF absent in all studies; use of diuretics absent in all studies; report of renal residual function absent in three studies and present in one; use of dietary counseling absent in three studies and present in one; data on hospitalization and mortality absent in all studies).
Efficacy of low dialysate sodium concentration on IDWG
Comparison of standard and low dialysate sodium concentration through prospective crossover studies
As shown in Fig. 2, compared to neutral or high dialysate sodium concentration, low dialysate sodium concentration reduced IDWG with a pooled MD of − 0.40 kg (95% CI − 0.50 to − 0.30; p < 0.001). As no significant heterogeneity was observed (p = 0.91 and I2 = 0%), the pooled analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. Funnel plots were generated to assess publication bias in the included studies. As shown in Fig. 3, no obvious asymmetry, indicating no clear evidence of publication bias, was observed.
Comparison of standard and low dialysate sodium concentration through prospective randomized parallel studies
A two-group, parallel-design study randomized 99 patients to 1:1 to either intervention (lower dialysate sodium concentration at 135 mmol/l) or control (conventional dialysate [Na+] at 140 mmol/l) group. The primary outcome was left ventricular mass index. The secondary outcomes were IDWG, intradialytic blood pressure, xerostomia, and thirst. The intervention resulted in a sustained, almost significant (p = 0.05) decrease of IDWG at 3 (− 0.47 [− 0.80 to − 0.15]), 6 (− 0.56 [− 0.90 to − 0.22]), 9 (− 0.90 [− 1.26 to − 0.54]), and 12 months (− 0.57 [− 0.86 to − 0.27]) [36]. In the study of Liu et al. [37], after 1-month period of dialysis with standard dialysate sodium concentration at 138 mmol/l (baseline), the dialysate sodium was switched to 136 mmol/l in the intervention group (28 patients), whereas remained at 138 mmol/l in the control group (29 patients). Each patient was followed up over a 12-month period. IDWG at baseline and 12 months was in the intervention group 3.3 ± 0.7 kg and 2.8 ± 0.6 kg (p < 0.05) and, in the control group, 3.1 ± 0.8 kg and 3.0 ± 1 kg (p > 0.05). Akdag et al. [38] randomized 46 patients, dialyzed with 140 dialysate sodium concentration, into a control group (24 patients) that maintained the dialysate 140 mmol sodium concentration and a treatment group in which the dialysate sodium concentration was reduced to 137 mmol/l. IDWG at baseline and 6 months was, in the intervention group, 2.2 ± 0.9 kg and 1.6 ± 0.5 kg (p < 0.001) and, in the control group, 2.3 ± 0.8 kg and 2.1 ± 0.7 kg (p > 0.05). In the study of Beduschi et al. [39], 38 patients were randomized to a control group (18 patients) with dialysate sodium concentration of 138 mmol/l or an intervention group (20 patients) with dialysate sodium concentration of 135 mmol/l. At baseline, 2 months and 4 months, the IDWG (kg) was 2.6 [1.7–3.5], 2.3 [1.84–2.9], and 2.8 [1.4–3.2] in the control group (p = 0.114) and 2.2 [2–2.7], 2 [0.75–3.03] in the treatment group (p = 0.11).
Risk of bias in studies
As shown in Table 3, cross-over design was appropriate in all studies. Five out of 15 crossover studies randomly allocated participants. Carry-over effects were not reported in any of the studies. Allocation of concealment was not reported in any crossover studies. Blinding of participants or study personnel was present in 9 studies, absent in 3, and indeterminate in 3. Data for every period were provided in every study. Relevant information about the completeness of outcome data was provided in every study. All the outcomes were fully reported in every study. All studies were apparently free of other problems. The overall rating was “low risk of bias” in 10 studies and “some concerns of bias” in 5 studies.
Table 4 shows that the overall score of randomized, controlled studies comparing standard and low sodium dialysate concentration ranged from 7 to 12, being 12 in three studies and 7 in one study.
Using GRADE, the certainty of the meta-analytic evidence (the extent of confidence the estimate of effect is correct) was considered high certainty. We did not strongly suspect publication bias in the studies eligible for the meta-analysis. We judged the evidence to have no serious indirectness, because despite variability, studies compared interventions to hemodialysis populations, and all studies used a direct measure of IDWG as the primary outcome. Considering that the sample size in the meta-analysis (n = 483) meets the optimal information size criterion, we did not downgrade due to imprecision.
Effect of low dialysate sodium concentration on intradialytic hypotensive events
In eleven studies, the number of intradialytic hypotensive events per total number of dialytic sessions has been reported. In most of these studies (9 out of 11), the frequency of intradialytic hypotensive events did not differ significantly between treatments performed with low and high sodium dialysate concentrations (Table 5). In the study of Marshall et al., lower sodium dialysate concentration resulted in a progressive increase of the frequency of intradialytic hypotensive events, with risk (OR) of 1.5 [0.2–10.2] at 3 months, 3.44 [0.5–23.6] at 9 months and 3.6 [0.5–28.8] at 12 months.
Discussion
The meta-analysis of 13 crossover randomized studies shows that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration reduces the IDWG in prevalent patients on chronic hemodialysis, with a pooled MD of − 0.42 kg. In addition, the present systematic review of four parallel, randomized, controlled studies reveals that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration is associated with a significant reduction of the IDWG in two studies, sustained and almost significant (p = 0.05) in one study, and not significant in the fourth one.
It could be questioned that the − 0.40 kg reduction observed in the pooled analysis may represent an effect that can be considered as being clinically small. Indeed, it seems that, when compared with other studies [2, 36], such reduction in considerable and deserve attention. In the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), the IDWG reduction, during a 10-year period of observation, was − 0.29 kg and − 0.25 kg, in the USA/Canada and in Europe, respectively [2]. Surprisingly, two recent systematic reviews have led to conflicting results [49, 50]. Basile et al. reported that, in most studies included in their review, patients on higher sodium dialysate had a significantly higher IDWG and that three interventional studies found no substantial differences in such parameter while in one study a reduction in total body weight in both patients undergoing low (135 mmol/l) or high (140 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration, but the difference between these two groups did not attain statistical significance [49]. The results of the study of Dunlop et al. demonstrated that low dialysate reduced IDWG compared to neutral or high dialysate (10 studies, 352 participants: MD − 0.35 kg, 95% CI − 0.51 to − 0.18), but the results were considered by the authors themselves as being clinically small [50].
However, it has been argued that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration may be, in some cases, associated with adverse events such as intra-dialytic hypotension, as consequence of an intradialytic hemodynamic instability [36, 49].
Interestingly, the present systematic review shows that in most studies, the frequency of intradialytic hypotensive events did not differ significantly between patients receiving hemodialysis with low or high sodium dialysate concentration [22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39]. The study of Marshall et al. only reported that hypotensive events were more frequent with lower sodium dialysate concentration [36]. The present review has some limitations. First, the length of the studies was extremely variously ranging from one week to twelve months. In this regard, it remains essentially unknown the mid-term and long-term effect of the use of low sodium dialysate concentration. Second, the “low” dialysate sodium concentrations used in the 20 studies were also extremely various. Consequently, it is impossible to define an “ideal” dialysate sodium concentration to be used in the clinical practice to reduce the IDWG. Third, studies were characterized by high complexity and heterogeneity.
In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of a low sodium concentration in the dialysate is associated with a statistically significant reduction of the IDWG in patients on chronic hemodialysis without a significant increase of intradialytic hypotensive events. Given the high complexity and diversity of the studies, it is amenable that, a prospective, randomized study with an adequate sample size and sex distribution, definition of residual renal function and use of diuretics, use of dietary counseling during the study, definition of the difference between prescribed and serum sodium concentration will be performed in the next future.
References
NKF Kdoqi GUIDELINES (2006) Clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy, update 2006. Am J Kidney Dis 48(Suppl 1):S2–S90
Wong MM, McCullough KP, Bieber BA et al (2017) Interdialytic weight gain: trends, predictors, and associated outcomes in the international dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis 69(3):367–379
Bossola M, Pepe G, Vulpio C (2018) The frustrating attempt to limit the interdialytic weight gain in patients on chronic hemodialysis: new insights into an old problem. J Ren Nutr 28(5):293–301
Kurita N, Hayashino Y, Yamazaki S et al (2017) Revisiting interdialytic weight gain and mortality association with serum albumin interactions: the japanese dialysis outcomes and practice pattern study. J Ren Nutr 2(6):421–429
Kalantar-Zadeh K, Regidor DL, Kovesdy CP, Van Wyck D et al (2009) Fluid retention is associated with cardiovascular mortality in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Circulation 119(5):671–679
Kimmel PL, Varela MP, Peterson RA et al (2000) Interdialytic weight gain and survival in hemodialysis patients: effects of duration of ESRD and diabetes mellitus. Kidney Int 57(3):1141–1151
Cabrera C, Brunelli SM, Rosenbaum D et al (2015) A retrospective, longitudinal study estimating the association between interdialytic weight gain and cardiovascular events and death in hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol 16:113
Lee MJ, Doh FM, Kim CH et al (2014) Interdialytic weight gain and cardiovascular outcome in incident hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 39(5):427–435
Saran R, Bragg-Gresham JL, Rayner HC et al (2003) Nonadherence in hemodialysis: associations with mortality, hospitalization, and practice patterns in the DOPPS. Kidney Int 64(1):254–262
Lindberg M, Prütz KG, Lindberg P, Wikström B (2009) Interdialytic weight gain and ultrafiltration rate in hemodialysis: lessons about fluid adherence from a national registry of clinical practice. Hemodial Int 13(2):181–188
Friend R, Hatchett L, Schneider MS, Wadhwa NK (1997) A comparison of attributions, health beliefs, and negative emotions as predictors of fluid adherence in renal dialysis patients: a prospective analysis. Ann Behav Med 19(4):344–347
Christensen AJ, Moran PJ, Lawton WJ, Stallman D, Voigts AL (1997) Monitoring attentional style and medical regimen adherence in hemodialysis patients. Health Psychol 16(3):256–262
Ifudu O, Uribarri J, Rajwani I et al (2002) Relation between interdialytic weight gain, body weight and nutrition in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 22(4):363–368
Schneider MS, Friend R, Whitaker P, Wadhwa NK (1991) Fluid noncompliance and symptomatology in end-stage renal disease: cognitive and emotional variables. Health Psychol 10(3):209–215
Smith K, Coston M, Glock K et al (2010) Patient perspectives on fluid management in chronic hemodialysis. J Ren Nutr 20(5):334–341
Gibson EL, Held I, Khawnekar D, Rutherford P (2016) Differences in knowledge, stress, sensation seeking, and locus of control linked to dietary adherence inhemodialysis patients. Front Psychol 7:1864
Ahrari S, Moshki M, Bahrami M (2014) The relationship between social support and adherence of dietary and fluids restrictions among hemodialysis patients in Iran. J Caring Sci 3(1):11–19
Walsh E, Lehane E (2011) An exploration of the relationship between adherence with dietary sodium restrictions and health beliefs regarding these restrictions in Irish patients receiving haemodialysis for end-stage renal disease. J Clin Nurs 20(3–4):331–340
Nerbass FB, Morais JG, dos Santos RG, Kruger TS, Sczip AC, da Luz Filho HA (2013) Factors associated to salt intake in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Bras Nefrol 35(2):87–92
Boquin E, Parnell S, Grondin G et al (1977) Crossover study of the effects of different dialysate sodium concentrations in large surface area, short-term dialysis. Proc Clin Dial Transplant Forum 7:48–52
Ogden DA (1978) A double-blind crossover comparison of high and low sodium dialysis. Proc Clin Dial Transplant Forum 8:157–165
Henrich WL, Woodard TD, McPhaul JJ Jr (1982) The chronic efficacy and safety of high sodium dialysate: double-blind, crossover study. Am J Kidney Dis 2(3):349–353
Daugirdas JT, Al-Kudsi RR, Ing TS, Norusis MJ (1985) A double-blind evaluation of sodium gradient hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol 5(3):163–168
Dominic SC, Ramachandran S, Somiah S, Mani K, Dominic SS (1996) Quenching the thirst in dialysis patients. Nephron 73(4):597–600
van Kuijk WH, Wirtz JJ, Grave W et al (1996) Vascular reactivity during combined ultrafiltration-haemodialysis: influence of dialysate sodium. Nephrol Dial Transplant 11(2):323–328
Farmer C, Donohoe P, Dallyn P (2000) Low-sodium hemodialysis without fluid removal improves blood pressure control in chronic hemodialysis patients. Nephrology 5:237–241
de Paula FM, Peixoto AJ, Pinto LV, Dorigo D, Patricio PJ, Santos SF (2004) Clinical consequences of an individualized dialysate sodium prescription in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 66(3):1232–1238
Thein H, Haloob I, Marshall MR (2007) Associations of a facility level decrease in dialysate sodium concentration with blood pressure and interdialytic weight gain. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22(9):2630–2639
Ozturk S, Taymez DG, Bahat G et al (2008) The influence of low dialysate sodium and glucose concentration on volume distributions in body compartments after haemodialysis: a bioimpedance analysis study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23(11):3629–3634
Munoz Mendoza J, Bayes LY, Sun S, Doss S, Schiller B (2011) Effect of lowering dialysate sodium concentration on interdialytic weight gain and blood pressure in patients undergoing thrice-weekly in-center nocturnal hemodialysis: a quality improvement study. Am J Kidney Dis 58(6):956–963
Kim DY, Kim B, Moon KH, Lee S, Lee DY (2014) Effect of gradually lowering dialysate sodium concentration on the interdialytic weight gain, blood pressure, and extracellular water in anurichemodialysis patients. Ren Fail 36(1):23–27
Eftimovska-Otovic N, Stojceva-Taneva O, Grozdanovski R, Stojcev S (2016) Clinical effects of standard and individualized dialysate sodium in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 4(2):248–252
Radhakrishnan RC, Varughese S, Chandran A et al (2020) Effects of individualized dialysate sodium prescription in hemodialysis—results from a prospective interventional trial. Indian J Nephrol 30(1):3–7
Manji S, Shah J, Twahir A, Sokwala A (2021) Association between dialysate sodium concentration and interdialytic weight gain in patients undergoing twice weekly haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol 22(1):225
Inrig JK, Molina C, D’Silva K et al (2015) Effect of low versus high dialysate sodium concentration on blood pressure and endothelial-derived vasoregulators during hemodialysis: a randomized crossover study. Am J Kidney Dis 65(3):464–473
Marshall MR, Vandal AC, de Zoysa JR et al (2020) Effect of low-sodium versus conventional sodium dialysate on left ventricular mass in home and self-care satellite facility hemodialysis patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 31(5):1078–1091
Liu J, Sun F, Ma LJ, Shen Y, Mei X, Zhou YL (2016) Increasing dialysis sodium removal on arterial stiffness and left ventricular hypertrophy in hemodialysis patients. J Ren Nutr 26(1):38–44
Akdag S, Akyol A, Cakmak HA et al (2015) The effect of low-sodium dialysate on ambulatory blood pressure measurement parameters in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 11:1829–1835
Beduschi GC, Telini LS, Caramori JC, Martin LC, Barretti P (2013) Effect of dialysate sodium reduction on body water volume, blood pressure, and inflammatory markers in hemodialysis patients–a prospective randomized controlled study. Ren Fail 35(5):742–747
Ramaswamy K, Brahmbhatt Y, Xia J, Song Y, Zhang J (2020) Individualized dialysate sodium prescriptions using sodium gradients for high-risk hemodialysis patients lowered interdialytic weight gain and achieved target weights [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 5]. Hemodial Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/hdi.12830
Nair SV, Balasubramanian K, Ramasamy A, Thamizhselvam H, Gharia S, Periasamy S (2021) Effect of low dialysate sodium in the management of intradialytic hypertension in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a single-center Indian experience. Hemodial Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/hdi.12921
Quality Assessment Tools. NHLBI, NIH. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/helth-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools accessed on 4 Jul 2023
Ding H, Hu GL, Zheng XY, Chen Q, Threapleton DE, Zhou ZH (2015) The method quality of cross-over studies involved in cochrane systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0120519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120519. (PMID: 25867772; PMCID: PMC4395015)
Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1997) Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127(9):820–826
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560
University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. University of York, York, CRD
Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748
Basile C, Pisano A, Lisi P, Rossi L, Lomonte C, Bolignano D (2016) High versus low dialysate sodium concentration in chronic haemodialysis patients: a systematic review of 23 studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 31(4):548–563. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv084
Dunlop JL, Vandal AC, Marshall MR (2019) Low dialysate sodium levels for chronic haemodialysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(1):CD011204
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bossola, M., Mariani, I., Sacco, M. et al. Interdialytic weight gain and low dialysate sodium concentration in patients on chronic hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 56, 2313–2323 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-03972-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-03972-3