The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel‐group, randomized controlled trial

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis (HD) require several hours to recover from an HD session. Patients and caregivers identify fatigue as a high priority for improvement. However, evidence for practical interventions to improve recovery time from conventional in-center HD is lacking. The effect of blood flow rate reduction on dialysis recovery time (DRT) is unknown. METHODS: Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-design controlled trial of blood flow rate reduction vs. usual care. One-hundred two patients with ESRD undergoing maintenance HD in 18 centers with baseline DRT of greater than 6 hours were included as subjects. The intervention was a blood flow rate reduction of 100 mL/min, to a minimum of 300 mL/min. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in DRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in London Evaluation of Illness (LEVIL) survey responses from baseline. FINDINGS: Baseline median DRT was 720 (IQR 360-1013) minutes in controls and 720 (IQR 360-1106) minutes in the intervention group. DRT decreased in both groups. Mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) at Week 4 in the study was -324 (-473, -175) minutes in the control group and -120 (-329, 90) minutes in the intervention group. The change from baseline was more profound in the control group (P = 0.05). Secondary outcomes of measures of quality of life reported on the LEVIL survey showed more improvement in patients' feelings of general well-being in the control group (P = 0.01). Differences between groups in pain, feeling washed out or drained, sleep quality, shortness of breath, and appetite were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Blood flow rate reduction did not improve DRT over usual care. Though more work needs to be done to address patient-reported fatigue, a significant positive impact may not be achieved without substantial changes in dialysis prescription.