Volume 7, Issue 3 pp. 204-208

Hemodynamic and Volume Changes during Hemodialysis

Robert M. Lindsay

Corresponding Author

Robert M. Lindsay

Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Center and The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence to:
Robert Lindsay, London Health Sciences Center, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario, Canada.
email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Tanya Shulman

Tanya Shulman

Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Center and The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Search for more papers by this author
Suma Prakash

Suma Prakash

Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Center and The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Search for more papers by this author
Gihad Nesrallah

Gihad Nesrallah

Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Center and The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Search for more papers by this author
Mercedeh Kiaii

Mercedeh Kiaii

Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Center and The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 June 2003
Citations: 19

Abstract

Background: Volume overload is a factor in the hypertension of hemodialysis (HD) patients. Fluid removal is therefore integral to the hemodialysis treatment. Fluid removal by hemodialysis ultrafiltration (UF) may cause intradialytic hypotension and leg cramps. Understanding blood pressure (BP) and volume changes during UF may eliminate intradialytic hypotension and cramps. Studies (S1, S2, and S3) were carried out to determine the amount and direction of changes in body fluid compartments following UF and to determine the relationships between BP, changes in blood volume (ΔBV), central blood volume (CBV), cardiac output (CO), peripheral vascular resistance (PVR) plus total body water (TBW), and intra- and extracellular fluid volumes (ICF, ECF) in both the whole body and body segments (arms, legs, trunk).

Methods: Indicator dilution technology (Transonic) was used for CBV, CO, and PVR; hematocrit monitoring (Crit-Line) was used for ΔBV segmental bioimpedance (Xitron) for TBW, ICF, and ECF.

Results: S1 (n = 21) showed UF sufficient to cause ΔBV of −7% and lead to minor changes (same direction) in CBV and CO, and with cessation of UF, vascular refilling was preferential to CBV. S2 (n = 20) showed that predialysis HD patients are ECF-expanded (ECF/ICF ratio = 0.96, controls = 0.74 [P < 0.0001]) and BP correlates with ECF (r = 0.47, P = 0.35). UF to cause ΔBV of −7% was associated with a decrease in ECF (P < 0.0001) and BP directly (r = 0.46, P = 0.04) plus ΔBV indirectly (r = −0.5, P = 0.024) correlated with PVR, while CBV and CO were maintained. S3 (n = 11) showed that following UF, total-body ECF changes were correlated with leg ECF (r = 0.94) and arm ECF (r = 0.72) but not trunk ECF. Absolute ECF reduction was greatest from the legs.

Conclusions: Predialysis ECF influences BP and UF reduces ΔBV and ECF, but CBV and BP are conserved by increasing PVR. ECF reduction is mainly from the legs, hence may cause cramps. Intradialytic hypotension is caused by failure of PVR response.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.