Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dialysis dysequilibrium syndrome (DDS) refers to neurological symptoms usually seen during or after new initiation or following reinitiation of haemodialysis (HD) after missing multiple sessions. DDS is associated with death and morbidity. We studied interventions aimed at preventing DDS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different types of interventions for preventing DDS. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 8 May 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any intervention against standard care, including individuals initiated on HD, regardless of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data. Data were collected on methods, interventions, participants, and outcomes (DDS incidence, severe DDS, death, adverse events). Risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, enrolling 32 adult participants. Interventions included were slow dialysis, sodium modelling, standard sodium dialysate, and high sodium dialysate. The risk of bias was of some concern to high risk of bias in both studies. Slow dialysis compared to sodium modelling (1 study, 15 participants) may result in little to no difference in DDS, severe DDS, and death (low certainty evidence) and has uncertain effects on adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 11.64; very low certainty evidence). Standard sodium dialysate compared to high sodium dialysate (1 study, 17 participants) has uncertain effects on the incidence of DDS (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.12), severe DDS (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.32), and adverse events (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02) (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In HD patients, sodium modelling, compared to slow dialysis, may result in little to no difference in DDS and death (low certainty evidence) and has uncertain effects on adverse events (very low certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for the effect of high-sodium dialysate and standard sodium dialysate on DDS, death and adverse events (very low certainty evidence).