Manual Versus Automated Biofeedback‐Guided Strategies for Isonatremic Hemodialysis: A Real‐World Comparative Study

BACKGROUND: Achieving neutral sodium balance during hemodialysis is essential to reduce sodium loading while preserving intradialytic hemodynamic stability. Automated biofeedback systems dynamically adjust dialysate sodium concentration using conductivity measurements, but their performance has rarely been compared with a manual individualized isonatremic sodium prescription in routine clinical practice. We compared these two individualized sodium management strategies. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center, real-world observational study included 49 adults undergoing maintenance online post-dilution hemodiafiltration between 2022 and 2024. A total of 14 653 dialysis sessions were analyzed, including 8164 sessions using automated biofeedback-guided sodium control targeting a plasma sodium change (ΔNa = 0 mmol/L) and 6489 sessions using a manual individualized isonatremic sodium prescription. Mixed-effects models were used to account for repeated sessions within patients. RESULTS: Automated biofeedback maintained diffusive sodium transfer closer to neutrality than the manual approach (-0.02 ± 2.2 vs. -0.90 ± 2.7 g; adjusted β = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11-0.62; p = 0.005), while total sodium removal was comparable between strategies. The machine-estimated change in plasma sodium was slightly greater with automated biofeedback (-1.6 ± 1.5 vs. -1.3 ± 1.8 mmol/L; adjusted β = -0.53; p = 0.03). Automated biofeedback was also associated with modestly lower interdialytic weight gain (2.12 ± 1.6 vs. 2.30 ± 1.9 kg; adjusted β = -0.11; p < 0.001) and pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (140 ± 21 vs. 143.6 ± 22 mmHg; adjusted β = -3.57; p < 0.001). Poor intradialytic tolerance (20.3% vs. 24.9%; OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.712-0.816; p < 0.001) and symptomatic intradialytic hypotension (12.9% vs. 14.8%; OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.799-0.919; p < 0.001) were also modestly less frequent during the automated biofeedback period. CONCLUSIONS: Automated biofeedback-guided sodium control provided more precise and reproducible sodium management than a manual individualized prescription and was associated with modest improvements in interdialytic weight gain, blood pressure, and intradialytic tolerance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/1744-9987.70229
Primary Topic
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Manual Versus Automated Biofeedback‐Guided Strategies for Isonatremic Hemodialysis: A Real‐World Comparative Study

Ahmed Alayoud, A. Lbid, M. Azizi, A. Soubhi
Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
article

Manual Versus Automated Biofeedback‐Guided Strategies for Isonatremic Hemodialysis: A Real‐World Comparative Study

Ahmed Alayoud, A. Lbid, M. Azizi, A. Soubhi
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Achieving neutral sodium balance during hemodialysis is essential to reduce sodium loading while preserving intradialytic hemodynamic stability. Automated biofeedback systems dynamically adjust dialysate sodium concentration using conductivity measurements, but their performance has rarely been compared with a manual individualized isonatremic sodium prescription in routine clinical practice. We compared these two individualized sodium management strategies. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center, real-world observational study included 49 adults undergoing maintenance online post-dilution hemodiafiltration between 2022 and 2024. A total of 14 653 dialysis sessions were analyzed, including 8164 sessions using automated biofeedback-guided sodium control targeting a plasma sodium change (ΔNa = 0 mmol/L) and 6489 sessions using a manual individualized isonatremic sodium prescription. Mixed-effects models were used to account for repeated sessions within patients. RESULTS: Automated biofeedback maintained diffusive sodium transfer closer to neutrality than the manual approach (-0.02 ± 2.2 vs. -0.90 ± 2.7 g; adjusted β = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11-0.62; p = 0.005), while total sodium removal was comparable between strategies. The machine-estimated change in plasma sodium was slightly greater with automated biofeedback (-1.6 ± 1.5 vs. -1.3 ± 1.8 mmol/L; adjusted β = -0.53; p = 0.03). Automated biofeedback was also associated with modestly lower interdialytic weight gain (2.12 ± 1.6 vs. 2.30 ± 1.9 kg; adjusted β = -0.11; p < 0.001) and pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure (140 ± 21 vs. 143.6 ± 22 mmHg; adjusted β = -3.57; p < 0.001). Poor intradialytic tolerance (20.3% vs. 24.9%; OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.712-0.816; p < 0.001) and symptomatic intradialytic hypotension (12.9% vs. 14.8%; OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.799-0.919; p < 0.001) were also modestly less frequent during the automated biofeedback period. CONCLUSIONS: Automated biofeedback-guided sodium control provided more precise and reproducible sodium management than a manual individualized prescription and was associated with modest improvements in interdialytic weight gain, blood pressure, and intradialytic tolerance.

Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis
Military Hospital (PK), Régie Autonome Multi Services D'Agadir (MA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.