Assessment of subjective and hemodynamic tolerance of different high- and low-flux dialysis membranes in patients undergoing chronic intermittent hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial.

Clinical experience and experimental data suggest that intradialytic hemodynamic profiles could be influenced by the characteristics of the dialysis membranes. Even within the worldwide used polysulfone family, intolerance to specific membranes was occasionally evoked. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamically some of the commonly used polysulfone dialyzers in Switzerland. We performed an open-label, randomized, cross-over trial, including 25 hemodialysis patients. Four polysulfone dialyzers, A (Revaclear high-flux, Gambro, Stockholm, Sweden), B (Helixone high-flux, Fresenius), C (Xevonta high-flux, BBraun, Melsungen, Germany), and D (Helixone low-flux, Fresenius, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany), were compared. The hemodynamic profile was assessed and patients were asked to provide tolerance feedback. The mean score (±SD) subjectively assigned to dialysis quality on a 1-10 scale was A 8.4 ± 1.3, B 8.6 ± 1.3, C 8.5 ± 1.6, D 8.5 ± 1.5. Kt/V was A 1.58 ± 0.30, B 1.67 ± 0.33, C 1.62 ± 0.32, D 1.45 ± 0.31. The low- compared with the high-flux membranes, correlated to higher systolic (128.1 ± 13.1 vs. 125.6 ± 12.1 mmHg, P < 0.01) and diastolic (76.8 ± 8.7 vs. 75.3 ± 9.0 mmHg; P < 0.05) pressures, higher peripheral resistance (1.44 ± 0.19 vs. 1.40 ± 0.18 s × mmHg/mL; P < 0.05) and lower cardiac output (3.76 ± 0.62 vs. 3.82 ± 0.59 L/min; P < 0.05). Hypotension events (decrease in systolic blood pressure by >20 mmHg) were 70 with A, 87 with B, 73 with C, and 75 with D (P < 0.01 B vs. A, 0.05 B vs. C and 0.07 B vs. D). The low-flux membrane correlated to higher blood pressure levels compared with the high-flux ones. The Helixone high-flux membrane ensured the best efficiency. Unfortunately, the very same dialyzer correlated to a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes.

An unusual Association Between Parkinson's Disease (PD) and Essential Tremor (ET) Characterized by opposite Lateral Predominance.

The occurrence of disabling postural and action tremor, which is repotted in less than 15 % of cases of PD. may be due to a combination of ET and PD, We report the case of a patient suffering bilaterally from postural tremor of different etiology on either side. A 69 year-old, right-handed woman with a family history of ET, was referred for bilateral hand tremor which was disabling on the right side. At the age of 61 she noticed a right hand postural tremor. not responsive to $- blockers, followed. two years later, by the onset of postural and action tremor on the opposite side. In the following two years. the patient developed asymmetric right-sided parkinsonism, while the postural and action tremor on the left remained unchanged. At time of evaluation, the patient had asymmetric parkinsonism with a 5 Hz rest and postural tremor on the right side and a postural-action tremor of the left hand. Dopaminergic acute challenge tests were performed. The administration of levodopalcarbidopa (ZOO/SO mg) improved the tremor on the right but not on the left. A progressive and more significant improvement was observed after the administration of increasing doses of apomorphine ( 1.6-3-4.5-6 mg). At the dose of 6 mg, apomorphine nearly completely abolished tremor on the right. The tremor of the left hand remained unchanged. The distinction between the two types of tremor was confirmed by the chronic treatment (using levodopa and dopaminergic agonists). Which improved only the right-sided tremor. Primidone was later introduced and improved selectively the tremor on the left. Conclusions: This patient developed both PD and ET with an unusual opposite prevalence. Drug challenge permitted the differentiation the clinically similar tremor types, which have a different pathophysiology.

Subthalamic (STN) Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's Disease (PD): Correlation Between the Location of the Stimulated Contacts and the Clinical Effects in 14 Patients

Objectives: To correlate the chronic stimulated electrode position on postoperative MRI with the clinical response obtained in PD patients. Material and Method: We retrospectively reviewed 14 consecutive parkinsonian patients who were selected for STN-DBS surgery. Coordinates were determined on an IR T2 MRI coronal section per pendicular to AC-PC plane 3 mm posterior to midcommissural point (MCP) and 12 mm lateral to the midline the inferior aspect of subthalamic region. A CRW stereotactic frame was used for the surgical procedure. A 3D IR T2 MRI was performed postoperatively to determine the location of the stimulated contact in each patient. The clinical results were assessed independently by the neurological team. Results: All but 2 patients had monopolar stimulation. The mean coordinates of the stimulated contacts were: AP ^ ÿ4:23G1:4, Lat ^ 1:12G0:15, Vert ^ ÿ4:1 G2:7 to the MCP. With a mean follow-up of 8 months, all stimulated patients had a significant clinical improvement (preop/postop «ON» UPDRS: 25:8G7:0= 23:3 G8:6; preop/postop «OFF» UPDRS: 50:2G11:4=26:0 G7:8), 60% of them without any antiparkinsonian drug. Conclusion: According to the stereotactic atlas of Schaltenbrand and Warren and the 3D shape of the STN, our results show that our targetting is accurate and almost all the stimulated contacts are comprised in the STN volume. This indicates that MRI is a safe, precise and reproducible procedure for targetting the STN. The location of the stimulated contact within the STN volume is a good predictor of the clinical results.

Pro and con arguments in using alternative dialysis regimens in the frail and elderly patients.

In the last decade, an increasing number of patients over 75 years of age are starting renal replacement therapy. Frailty is highly prevalent in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the context of the increased prevalence of some ESRD-associated conditions: protein-energy wasting, inflammation, anaemia, acidosis or hormonal disturbances. There are currently no hard data to support guidance on the optimal duration of dialysis for frail/elderly ESRD patients. The current debate is not about starting dialysis or managing conservatory frail ESRD patients, but whether a more intensive regimen once dialysis is initiated (for whatever reasons and circumstances) would improve patients' outcome. The most important issue is that all studies performed with extended/alternative dialysis regimens do not specifically address this particular type of patients and therefore all the inferences are derived from the general ESRD population. Care planning should be responsive to end-of-life needs whatever the treatment modality. Care in this setting should focus on symptom control and quality of life rather than life extension. We conclude that, similar to the general dialysed population, extensive application of more intensive dialysis schedules is not based on solid evidence. However, after a thorough clinical evaluation, a limited period of a trial of intensive dialysis could be prescribed in more problematic patients.