Education Use Only
For educational use only — Not for clinical decision-making without independent verification
Medical Associates  ·  Department of Nephrology ← Maintenance Hemodialysis module  ·  urinenephrology.org
Clinical Mastery Series  ·  Maintenance Hemodialysis

Intradialytic hypotension and dialysate cooling

Which definition predicts death, what IDH costs, prevention ranked by evidence, the chair-side response, and what cooling does and does not do
Andrew Bland, MD, FACP, FAAP UICOMP · UDPA · Butler COM Reviewed September 2026 16 min read

Bottom line

Part of the Maintenance Hemodialysis mastery module. IDH = intradialytic hypotension; SBP = systolic blood pressure; UF = ultrafiltration; UFR = ultrafiltration rate.

  • IDH occurs in approximately 10–12% of sessions by the two most-used definitions (10.1% by the European criterion, 11.6% by a nadir SBP below 90 mmHg) 1. The often-quoted 20–30% depends on a looser definition.
  • Count nadirs, not symptoms. An absolute nadir SBP below 90 mmHg (below 100 when pre-dialysis SBP is 160 or higher) is the definition most strongly associated with death; symptom or intervention criteria add nothing 2. KDIGO: any symptomatic fall or any nadir below 90 should prompt reassessment of the prescription 3.
  • IDH is associated with end-organ harm—myocardial infarction (HR 1.20), mesenteric ischemia (OR 1.82), and new-onset dementia (HR 1.36)—in observational cohorts 4,5,6.
  • Prevention starts with the UF rate: add time or sessions, reduce weight gain, and reassess target weight before reaching for drugs 3,7,8. Midodrine has no outcome trial and a cohort signal of harm 9,10, and routine sodium profiling is not recommended 11.
  • At the chair, saline works as well as albumin. In a double-blind crossover RCT, 5% albumin was no better than normal saline for any outcome 12.
  • Cooling reliably reduces IDH; as a center-wide policy it did not reduce cardiovascular events. Cool dialysate cut IDH by 70% across 26 small trials 13, while MyTEMP (84 centers, 15,413 patients) was neutral (HR 1.00) 14. Cooling is a tolerance tool for the patient who needs it.

1. Definitions, frequency, and which one predicts death

There is no consensus definition. Most combine a blood-pressure criterion (a fall or a nadir), an intervention, and symptoms 15, and the reported frequency moves with the definition.

DefinitionFrequency
European (EBPG): SBP fall of 20 mmHg or more, or MAP fall of 10 mmHg or more, with symptoms or nursing intervention10.1% of sessions, pooled 1,16
Nadir SBP below 90 mmHg11.6% of sessions, pooled 1; 12% of 785,682 treatments 17
Nursing intervention required8.5%–29.2% of sessions across 3 studies 1
SBP fall of more than 30 mmHg to below 90 mmHg17.2% of treatments; 16.2% of patients met it on more than 35% of treatments 18
Fall of 20 mmHg or more plus 2 or more interventions31.1% of patients over 90 days 4

The Kuipers meta-analysis concluded that IDH affects fewer than 12% of sessions by either the European or the nadir-below-90 criterion, much lower than most reviews state 1. Figures of 20–30% of sessions, repeated in teaching materials, depend on the definition used.

Which definition predicts death?

Flythe tested the common definitions in HEMO (1,409 patients) and a dialysis-organization cohort (10,392). An absolute nadir SBP below 90 mmHg in at least 30% of baseline treatments was most potently associated with mortality (adjusted HR 1.38 in HEMO and 1.22 in the larger cohort), and when pre-dialysis SBP was 160 or higher, a nadir below 100 mmHg was. Definitions based on symptoms, interventions, or the size of the drop were not associated with outcome, and adding them to the nadir did not strengthen it 2. A 30 mmHg drop from 190 to 160 is not the same event as a drop from 120 to 90.

KDIGO 2020 turned that into an action threshold: any symptomatic fall in blood pressure or any nadir intradialytic SBP below 90 mmHg should prompt reassessment of UF rate, treatment time, weight gain, the dry-weight estimate, and antihypertensive use, and avoiding IDH should not come at the expense of euvolemia or adequate dialysis time 3.

Clinical Pearl — asymptomatic hypotension counts

A patient who drops to an SBP of 84 and says “I feel fine” has had the mortality-relevant event. Symptom-based definitions added nothing to the prognostic signal of the nadir 2. Reassessment is not reflexive saline: check the measurement, the UF rate, the target weight, the medications, and the trajectory across sessions.

2. Mechanism and consequences

IDH begins when the ultrafiltration rate exceeds the plasma refill rate and intravascular volume falls. Whether blood pressure holds depends on compensatory reserve: heart rate, contractility, vasoconstriction, and splanchnic shift. Autonomic neuropathy, diastolic dysfunction, low ejection fraction, vasodilating drugs, food intake, and warm dialysate erode that reserve 1,3.

UF rate exceeds plasma refill → falling intravascular volume
Compensatory reserve adequate? If yes, blood pressure is maintained. If eroded, nadir SBP falls below 90.
Heart
Myocardial stunning; LV dysfunction
Brain
Hypoperfusion; new-onset dementia
Gut
Mesenteric ischemia
Kidney
Loss of residual function
Treatment
Saline rescue, early termination, target not reached
Figure 1. Intradialytic hypotension: mechanism and end-organ associations 3,5,6,19,20.
  • Cardiovascular: IDH was associated with myocardial infarction (HR 1.20), heart-failure or volume-overload hospitalization (HR 1.13), and death (HR 1.07) in 39,497 patients 4. Myocardial stunning tracked with IDH 20. Intradialytic blood-pressure variability, independent of the mean, also predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality 21.
  • Gut: nadir-based IDH in the prior 30 days was associated with hospitalized mesenteric ischemia (OR 1.82, 1.47–2.26), with a dose-response 5.
  • Brain: among 31,055 older incident patients, frequent IDH (nadir below 90 in 30% or more of treatments) in 7 or more ninety-day intervals was associated with new-onset dementia (HR 1.36) 6.
  • Kidney: dialysis hypotension contributed to early decline in residual GFR 19.
  • Timing: in 4,348 patients, IDH early in the session, before UF volume and relative blood volume explained it, was associated with worse survival than late IDH 17.
Clinical Pearl — early IDH is a cardiac question

Hypotension in the first 60–90 minutes is poorly explained by UF volume or blood volume 17. Think heart, rhythm, sepsis, a medication taken before the run, or a dialyzer reaction, not “too much fluid off.”

Modifiable risk factors

High UFR (the dominant factor), large interdialytic weight gain, short session time, low pre-dialysis SBP, diabetes and autonomic neuropathy, cardiac dysfunction, a target weight set too low, food intake during dialysis, warm dialysate, and vasodilating antihypertensives 1,3.

3. Prevention, ordered by the strength of the evidence

StrategyEvidenceComment
Lower the UF rate by adding time or sessionsConsistent observational mortality gradient 7,8,22,23; guideline-endorsed 24,25First-line (see Ultrafiltration rate and treatment time)
Reduce weight gain (sodium restriction)Meta-analysis OR 0.57 for IDWG above 2.5 kg 26; higher weight gain, more IDH 4Protect nutrition; low weight gain is also a warning 27
Reassess target weightKDIGO action item 3A falling flesh weight makes yesterday’s target too low 24 (see Estimating dry weight)
Cool dialysateIDH reduced 70% in 26 trials 13; no cardiovascular-event benefit as a center-wide policy 14Section 5
Antihypertensive timingTAKE-HOLD (cluster RCT): holding did not clearly reduce IDH; taking reduced uncontrolled hypertension 28Hold selectively, not reflexively
Avoid eating during HD in IDH-prone patientsMeals lowered blood pressure faster; 13 vs 2 symptomatic episodes in 9 patients 29Not a blanket ban; the ISRNM supports intradialytic meals for patients without contraindications 30
MidodrineNadir SBP +13.3 mmHg in small, short studies 9; associated with higher mortality and hospitalization in a matched cohort 10Symptomatic relief only; no outcome trial 3
UF profilingA linear-decreasing profile had less hypotension than constant or pulsed UF 31; pilot RCT: no change in IDH, troponin, or strain, and less light-headedness 32Avoid profiles with high-rate pulses 31
Sodium profilingAssociated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in DOPPS facility data (HR 1.36 and 1.34) 11Do not use routinely (see Dialysate sodium)
HemodiafiltrationCONVINCE (RCT): all-cause death 17.3% vs 21.9%, HR 0.77 (0.65–0.93); RRR 23%, ARR 4.6%, NNT approximately 22 over a median 30 months 33; the UK guideline suggests HDF for IDH refractory to other measures 24A mortality trial, not an IDH trial; lower IDH with HDF in older studies may be confounded by cooling and sodium balance 24

TAKE-HOLD in detail. Ten units, 131 patients, 4 weeks. Taking all blood-pressure medications was not shown non-inferior to holding medications dosed more than once daily for the IDH outcome (difference 8%, −3% to 19%), but taking was superior for avoiding uncontrolled pre-dialysis hypertension (absolute difference −15%, −28% to −1%; approximately 7 patients taking rather than holding per patient spared uncontrolled hypertension over 4 weeks) and non-inferior for dry-weight achievement and shortened sessions 28. Medication timing is discussed further in Treating hypertension on dialysis.

Midodrine in detail. Doses of 2.5–10 mg were given 15–30 minutes before dialysis in the studies pooled by Prakash; post-dialysis SBP rose 12.4 mmHg and nadir SBP 13.3 mmHg, but the studies were small and short 9. In 1,046 users matched to 2,037 controls, midodrine was associated with higher death (IRR 1.37, 1.15–1.62) and hospitalization rates and more IDH during follow-up; confounding by indication is likely, but the data are not consistent with a potent beneficial effect 10. No source supports an NNT for midodrine in IDH prevention.

4. Chair-side response

The UK guideline recommends prompt nursing intervention to restore hemodynamic stability in symptomatic or severe IDH, with those interventions leading to clinical review. Its list is the standard one: leg-raised positioning, stopping ultrafiltration, and fluid administration, with saline as effective as albumin, plus assessment for intercurrent illness (infection, arrhythmia) or a specific dialysis complication (air embolism, dialyzer reaction). Frequent interventions should trigger reassessment of target weight, UF settings, and medications 24.

Saline, not albumin. In a double-blind crossover RCT of 72 patients, 5% albumin was no better than normal saline for percentage of target UF achieved (0.84 vs 0.80), time to restore blood pressure, recurrent IDH (36% vs 36%), or treatment failure (22% vs 24%); average fluid per episode was approximately 400 mL 12.

Trigger during HD: symptoms (dizziness, cramps, nausea, yawning), or SBP below 90, or below 100 if pre-dialysis SBP was 160 or higher
Immediately: stop UF or set it to minimum; legs up, head down if tolerated; repeat blood pressure now
Red flags? Chest pain, new arrhythmia, altered mentation, fever or rigors, bleeding, air in the lines, or a reaction in the first minutes. If yes: emergency pathway per unit protocol, call the nephrologist, and do not treat it as a volume problem.
↓ if no
Recovered within minutes
Resume UF at a lower rate; recheck blood pressure frequently; confirm the dialysate temperature setting
Not recovered
Normal saline bolus per the unit’s standing order; recheck. Still not recovered after a second bolus: call the nephrologist and consider ending treatment
After the session: record the nadir SBP, interventions, fluid given, and UF achieved versus goal. Flag a second episode in a week, or a nadir below 90 in 30% or more of sessions, for review of target weight, UF rate, session time, weight gain, medications and timing, temperature, and cardiac status.
Figure 2. Chair-side response to intradialytic hypotension. Steps follow the UK guideline’s nursing measures 24 and the saline-versus-albumin RCT 12; triggers follow the nadir-based definitions 2,3; the early-session red flags follow 17. Bolus size and number are set by the unit’s standing order; no trial defines them.

5. Dialysate temperature

Why patients heat up on dialysis

Core temperature rises during standard hemodialysis even when the circuit neither adds nor removes heat 24,34. Two explanations compete. The volume hypothesis: UF-induced hypovolemia causes skin vasoconstriction, which traps heat, and the cooling needed to hold core temperature constant scaled with the weight removed 35. Not only volume: core temperature rose equally during energy-neutral dialysis with and without ultrafiltration (0.32 vs 0.27 °C), so no single mechanism explains the heat gain 34. Either way, the body responds to warming by vasodilating, which lowers peripheral resistance exactly when ultrafiltration is draining the circulation.

TermMeaning
ThermoneutralThe circuit adds or removes no heat; core temperature still rises 34
IsothermicDialysate adjusted to keep core temperature unchanged; requires active cooling 35,36
Fixed coolA set dialysate temperature for everyone, such as 35.0 or 35.5 °C
Individualized coolDialysate set 0.5 °C (range 0.5–1.0 °C) below the patient’s measured core or pre-dialysis temperature 14,24,37

Physiology and small trials

StudyDesignResult
Maggiore 2002 36Randomized crossover, 116 hypotension-prone patients, 27 centers; isothermic vs thermoneutralHypotensive sessions fell from a median 6 of 12 to 3 of 12
Fine 1996 38128 patients; 35 vs 37 °C for 10 treatments eachSymptomatic hypotension reduced overall with 35 °C, but no effect in euthermic patients; with pre-dialysis temperature below 36 °C, 3.4% vs 15.9%
Selby 2006 39Crossover, 10 IDH-prone patients, 35 vs 37 °C, serial echoNew regional wall-motion abnormalities: 13 in 4 patients at 35 °C vs 49 in 9 patients at 37 °C; higher BP from higher peripheral resistance; most tolerated 35 °C
Chesterton 2009 40Crossover, 10 IDH-prone patientsAsymptomatic IDH 0.4 vs 6.2 episodes per session
Jørgensen 2026 41Single-blind crossover, 14 patientsSBP fall 9.6 vs 20.3 mmHg; no effect on post-dialysis orthostatic BP
Marants 2019 42Renal CT perfusion, 29 + 15 patientsRenal perfusion fell 18.4% during standard HD and 10.6% with 35 °C dialysate (difference not significant)

Systematic reviews. Selby and McIntyre (22 crossover studies, 408 patients): IDH 7.1 times less frequent with cooling, post-dialysis MAP 11.3 mmHg higher, and no loss of urea clearance 43. Mustafa (26 RCTs, 484 patients): IDH reduced 70% (95% CI 49%–89%), intradialytic MAP +12 mmHg, discomfort 2.95 times more often (not significant), Kt/V difference −0.05 (not significant), low confidence in the estimates, and no long-term outcomes 13.

Longer-term organ protection: the Nottingham/Derby RCT

One trial randomized 73 incident patients to 37 °C or individualized cooling at 0.5 °C below core temperature for 12 months and produced two papers. Heart: no difference in the primary outcome, LV ejection fraction (1.5%, −4.3% to 7.3%); secondary measures favored cooling, including LV mass −15.6 g and preserved strain 37. Brain: in 38 patients with paired diffusion-tensor MRI, cooling protected against the white-matter changes seen at 37 °C 44. Appraisal: a negative primary endpoint with favorable secondary imaging endpoints, against a 37 °C control warmer than today’s usual care. Suggestive of organ protection; not proof of clinical benefit. It is a separate UK study, not “the MyTEMP pilot.”

MyTEMP: the definitive pragmatic trial

MyTEMP cluster-randomized 84 Ontario centers to a center-wide policy of personalized cooler dialysate (nurses set dialysate 0.5–0.9 °C below each patient’s measured pre-dialysis temperature, lowest recommended 35.5 °C) or standard 36.5 °C, from 2017 to 2021 14.

ItemCoolerStandard
Patients8,0007,413
Mean delivered dialysate temperature35.8 °C36.4 °C
Primary outcome (cardiovascular death or admission for MI, ischemic stroke, or heart failure)1,711 (21.4%)1,658 (22.4%)
Adjusted HR (96% CI)1.00 (0.89–1.11); RRR 0%, ARR not significant, NNT not applicable
Mean intradialytic SBP fall26.6 mmHg27.1 mmHg

A Bayesian reanalysis concentrated the hazard ratio between 0.95 and 1.05 regardless of prior 45.

Critical appraisal — what MyTEMP answered

Answered: a center-wide policy of modest cooling for every patient in the unit does not reduce hard cardiovascular events—a clean, important negative 14. Not answered: whether targeted cooling helps the IDH-prone patient. The trial did not select for IDH, the delivered separation was only 0.6 °C, and a 0.5 mmHg difference in intradialytic SBP fall means most patients’ hemodynamics did not change 14. The 36.5 °C control arm reflects current usual care, which narrows the contrast. Endpoints were hard and registry-captured by coders unaware of allocation; delivery was open-label. Commentators argue that MyTEMP challenges unit-level implementation, not patient-level cooling, and that cooling should not be hastily removed from dialysis care 46.

Guideline positions

  • UK Renal Association 2019: dialysate temperature no greater than 36 °C if standardized. The rationale: preventing temperature rise matters more than cooling; individualize at 0.5–1.0 °C below core temperature, or use 36 °C or lower unit-wide, which is probably adequate for most patients, with individualization for persistent hypotension or cold symptoms 24.
  • KDIGO 2020: cooling, relative to measured body temperature or to a set 35 or 36 °C, is associated with hemodynamic stability, and 0.5 °C below body temperature is well tolerated by most patients 3.
  • Facility data (observational): routine use of lower dialysate temperature to limit IDH was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality in DOPPS (HR 0.76) 11, and higher dialysate temperature was associated with more IDH at the treatment level 18.

Fixed cold for everyone, or targeted cooling?

ConsiderationEvidence
Physiologically soundCooling raises peripheral resistance and blood pressure during UF 39,40
Reduces IDHConsistent across small trials; 70% pooled reduction 13
Reduces stunning in IDH-prone patients35 vs 37 °C crossover 39
A fixed 35.0 °C is colder than the tested policiesMyTEMP’s floor was 35.5 °C and its cooler arm averaged 35.8 °C 14; the UK standardized ceiling is 36 °C 24
Benefit concentrates in cool patientsNo IDH benefit from 35 vs 37 °C in euthermic patients; large benefit when pre-dialysis temperature is below 36 °C 38
Cold discomfortPooled discomfort ratio 2.95, imprecise 13; most IDH-prone patients tolerated 35 °C 39
No hard-outcome benefit at the unit levelMyTEMP HR 1.00 14

Taken together, the trials and guidelines support a standardized dialysate temperature no higher than 36 °C, with individualized cooling to about 0.5 °C below measured pre-dialysis temperature for patients with recurrent IDH, stunning risk, or a low baseline temperature 3,14,24,38,39. A fixed 35.0 °C for every patient is colder than any tested policy, and its benefit is likely to concentrate in hypotension-prone and cool patients 14,38.

Cooling improves the blood-pressure reading, not the refill rate

Cooling holds blood pressure up by vasoconstriction 39,40. No study shows that cooling removes the mortality gradient associated with high UF rates 8,22,23. A better-looking blood pressure on a cool bath is not permission to exceed the UF ceiling; it is a way to tolerate a rate that is already within it.

Evidence gaps

  • No consensus definition of IDH; reported frequency varies several-fold with the definition 1,15.
  • Patient-level cooling in IDH-prone patients lacks an outcome trial; MyTEMP answered the unit-policy question only 14,46.
  • Midodrine has no outcome trial, and the largest cohort suggests harm 3,10.
  • Chair-side rescue is untested beyond saline versus albumin; bolus size and number rest on unit standing orders 12.
  • Hemodiafiltration and IDH: CONVINCE was a mortality trial, and older IDH comparisons may be confounded by cooling and sodium balance 24,33.

At the chair

For dialysis nurses and technicians

Record the nadir systolic pressure every session, including when the patient feels fine; a nadir below 90 is the event that matters. When pressure falls, stop or minimize UF, position the patient, and give saline per standing order; albumin offers no advantage. Hypotension in the first hour is a red-flag pattern: look for chest pain, arrhythmia, fever, bleeding, or a reaction rather than assuming too much fluid came off. Repeated episodes need a prescription review, not repeated rescue.

Nursing card N5: Intradialytic hypotension: chair-side response

The physician’s written order and the unit protocol always govern.

Also in this module

References

References are carried from a reference-checked evidence review (September 2026) and renumbered for this page. Each was checked against its PubMed record, full text, or the issuing agency’s document.

  1. Kuipers J, Verboom LM, Ipema KJR, et al. The prevalence of intradialytic hypotension in patients on conventional hemodialysis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Nephrol. 2019;49(6):497-506. PMID: 31129661
  2. Flythe JE, Xue H, Lynch KE, Curhan GC, Brunelli SM. Association of mortality risk with various definitions of intradialytic hypotension. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(3):724-34. PMID: 25270068
  3. Flythe JE, Chang TI, Gallagher MP, et al. Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2020;97(5):861-876. PMID: 32278617
  4. Stefánsson BV, Brunelli SM, Cabrera C, et al. Intradialytic hypotension and risk of cardiovascular disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(12):2124-32. PMID: 25376764
  5. Seong EY, Zheng Y, Winkelmayer WC, Montez-Rath ME, Chang TI. The relationship between intradialytic hypotension and hospitalized mesenteric ischemia: a case-control study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(10):1517-1525. PMID: 30237215
  6. Assimon MM, Wang L, Flythe JE. Cumulative exposure to frequent intradialytic hypotension associates with new-onset dementia among elderly hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int Rep. 2019;4(4):603-606. PMID: 30993235
  7. Saran R, Bragg-Gresham JL, Levin NW, et al. Longer treatment time and slower ultrafiltration in hemodialysis: associations with reduced mortality in the DOPPS. Kidney Int. 2006;69(7):1222-8. PMID: 16609686
  8. Assimon MM, Wenger JB, Wang L, Flythe JE. Ultrafiltration rate and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(6):911-922. PMID: 27575009
  9. Prakash S, Garg AX, Heidenheim AP, House AA. Midodrine appears to be safe and effective for dialysis-induced hypotension: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19(10):2553-8. PMID: 15280522
  10. Brunelli SM, Cohen DE, Marlowe G, Van Wyck D. The impact of midodrine on outcomes in patients with intradialytic hypotension. Am J Nephrol. 2018;48(5):381-388. PMID: 30423552
  11. Dasgupta I, Thomas GN, Clarke J, et al. Associations between hemodialysis facility practices to manage fluid volume and intradialytic hypotension and patient outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(3):385-393. PMID: 30723164
  12. Knoll GA, Grabowski JA, Dervin GF, O'Rourke K. A randomized, controlled trial of albumin versus saline for the treatment of intradialytic hypotension. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(2):487-92. PMID: 14747397
  13. Mustafa RA, Bdair F, Akl EA, et al. Effect of lowering the dialysate temperature in chronic hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(3):442-57. PMID: 26712807
  14. MyTEMP Writing Committee. Personalised cooler dialysate for patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis (MyTEMP): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10364):1693-1703. PMID: 36343653
  15. Assimon MM, Flythe JE. Definitions of intradialytic hypotension. Semin Dial. 2017;30(6):464-472. PMID: 28691195
  16. Kooman J, Basci A, Pizzarelli F, et al. EBPG guideline on haemodynamic instability. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(Suppl 2):ii22-ii44. PMID: 17507425
  17. Keane DF, Raimann JG, Zhang H, et al. The time of onset of intradialytic hypotension during a hemodialysis session associates with clinical parameters and mortality. Kidney Int. 2021;99(6):1408-1417. PMID: 33607178
  18. Sands JJ, Usvyat LA, Sullivan T, et al. Intradialytic hypotension: frequency, sources of variation and correlation with clinical outcome. Hemodial Int. 2014;18(2):415-22. PMID: 24467830
  19. Jansen MA, Hart AA, Korevaar JC, et al. Predictors of the rate of decline of residual renal function in incident dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2002;62(3):1046-53. PMID: 12164889
  20. Burton JO, Jefferies HJ, Selby NM, McIntyre CW. Hemodialysis-induced cardiac injury: determinants and associated outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(5):914-20. PMID: 19357245
  21. Flythe JE, Inrig JK, Shafi T, et al. Association of intradialytic blood pressure variability with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with long-term hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(6):966-974. PMID: 23474007
  22. Flythe JE, Kimmel SE, Brunelli SM. Rapid fluid removal during dialysis is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Kidney Int. 2011;79(2):250-7. PMID: 20927040
  23. Raimann JG, Wang Y, Mermelstein A, Kotanko P, Daugirdas JT. Ultrafiltration rate thresholds associated with increased mortality risk in hemodialysis, unscaled or scaled to body size. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(7):1585-1593. PMID: 35812299
  24. Ashby D, Borman N, Burton J, et al. Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):379. PMID: 31623578
  25. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy: 2015 update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;66(5):884-930. PMID: 26498416
  26. Bossola M, Mariani I, Antocicco M, et al. Interdialytic weight gain and low-salt diet in patients on chronic hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2024;63:105-112. PMID: 38941185
  27. Hecking M, Moissl U, Genser B, et al. Greater fluid overload and lower interdialytic weight gain are independently associated with mortality in a large international hemodialysis population. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(10):1832-1842. PMID: 29688512
  28. Chang TI, Tatoian ET, Montez-Rath ME, Chertow GM. Timing of antihypertensive medications on key outcomes in hemodialysis: a cluster randomized trial. Kidney360. 2021;2(11):1752-1760. PMID: 35373003
  29. Sherman RA, Torres F, Cody RP. Postprandial blood pressure changes during hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1988;12(1):37-9. PMID: 3389352
  30. Kistler BM, Benner D, Burrowes JD, et al. Eating during hemodialysis treatment: a consensus statement from the International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism. J Ren Nutr. 2018;28(1):4-12. PMID: 29249295
  31. Donauer J, Kölblin D, Bek M, Krause A, Böhler J. Ultrafiltration profiling and measurement of relative blood volume as strategies to reduce hemodialysis-related side effects. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36(1):115-23. PMID: 10873880
  32. Flythe JE, Tugman MJ, Narendra JH, et al. Effect of ultrafiltration profiling on outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients: a pilot randomized crossover trial. J Nephrol. 2021;34(1):113-123. PMID: 32975783
  33. Blankestijn PJ, Vernooij RWM, Hockham C, et al. Effect of hemodiafiltration or hemodialysis on mortality in kidney failure. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(8):700-709. PMID: 37326323
  34. van der Sande FM, Rosales LM, Brener Z, et al. Effect of ultrafiltration on thermal variables, skin temperature, skin blood flow, and energy expenditure during ultrapure hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(6):1824-31. PMID: 15857923
  35. Rosales LM, Schneditz D, Morris AT, Rahmati S, Levin NW. Isothermic hemodialysis and ultrafiltration. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36(2):353-61. PMID: 10922314
  36. Maggiore Q, Pizzarelli F, Santoro A, et al. The effects of control of thermal balance on vascular stability in hemodialysis patients: results of the European randomized clinical trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;40(2):280-90. PMID: 12148100
  37. Odudu A, Eldehni MT, McCann GP, McIntyre CW. Randomized controlled trial of individualized dialysate cooling for cardiac protection in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(8):1408-17. PMID: 25964310
  38. Fine A, Penner B. The protective effect of cool dialysate is dependent on patients' predialysis temperature. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;28(2):262-5. PMID: 8768922
  39. Selby NM, Burton JO, Chesterton LJ, McIntyre CW. Dialysis-induced regional left ventricular dysfunction is ameliorated by cooling the dialysate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1216-25. PMID: 17699351
  40. Chesterton LJ, Selby NM, Burton JO, McIntyre CW. Cool dialysate reduces asymptomatic intradialytic hypotension and increases baroreflex variability. Hemodial Int. 2009;13(2):189-96. PMID: 19432693
  41. Jørgensen IEH, Jensen JSK, Buus NH, Jensen JD, Peters CD. Haemodynamic effects of low versus high dialysate temperature in haemodialysis patients: a single-blinded, randomised, cross-over study. BMC Nephrol. 2026;27. PMID: 42237221
  42. Marants R, Qirjazi E, Grant CJ, Lee TY, McIntyre CW. Renal perfusion during hemodialysis: intradialytic blood flow decline and effects of dialysate cooling. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(6):1086-1095. PMID: 31053638
  43. Selby NM, McIntyre CW. A systematic review of the clinical effects of reducing dialysate fluid temperature. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(7):1883-98. PMID: 16601075
  44. Eldehni MT, Odudu A, McIntyre CW. Randomized clinical trial of dialysate cooling and effects on brain white matter. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(4):957-65. PMID: 25234925
  45. Ouyang Y, Luo B, Dixon SN, et al. Bayesian analysis of time-to-event data in a cluster-randomized trial: Major Outcomes With Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) Trial. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2025;12:20543581251341710. PMID: 40583938
  46. Hull KL, McIntyre C, Burton JO. Does cooled dialysate still have a role in reducing intradialytic stress? Implications of the MyTEMP trial. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2023;32(6):537-543. PMID: 37753645