The protective effect of different dialysis types on residual renal function in patients with maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Residual renal function (RRF) is an important determinant of mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Different dialysis types may have different effects on RRF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to examine the RRF protective effect of different dialysis types for hemodialysis patients. METHODS:A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Dialysis types included low-flux hemodialysis (LFHD), high-flux hemodialysis (HFHD), hemodiafiltration (HDF), and hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (HD+HP). The mean of endogenous creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and urea clearance rate (Curea), or urine volume was used to estimate RRF [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 6.05-16.80]. RESULTS:There were 12 articles involving 1224 patients, including 11 random controlled trials and 1 cohort study. Meta-analysis showed that the RRF protective effect of HFHD [mean difference (MD)?=?1.48, 95% CI (2.11 to 0.86), P?
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Vancomycin is frequently used in hemodialysis (HD) and in hemodiafiltration (HDF) patients and is usually administered in the last 30 or 60 minutes of a dialysis session. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics are not well described in HDF patients. The aim of this study is to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PPK) model and dosing regimen for vancomycin in HDF patients and to evaluate its applicability in low-flux (LF-HD) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Two-compartment PPK models were developed using data from HDF patients (n = 17), and was parameterized as follows: non-renal clearance (CLm), renal clearance as a fraction of creatinine clearance (fr), central volume of distribution (V1), intercompartmental clearance (CL12), peripheral volume of distribution (V2) and extracorporeal extraction ratio (Eec). We evaluated the final model in a cohort of LF-HD patients (n = 21). Dosing schemes were developed for a vancomycin 24-h AUC of 400 mg*h/L.<h4>Results</h4>Model parameters (± SD) were: CLm = 0.473 (0.271) L/h, fr = 0.1 (fixed value), V1 = 0.278 (0.092) L/kgLBMc, CL12 = 9.96 L/h (fixed value), V2 = 0.686 (0.335) L/kgLBMc and Eec = 0.212 (0.069). The model reliably predicted serum levels of vancomycin in both HDF and LF-HD patients during and between dialysis sessions. The median of the prediction error (MDPE) as a measure of bias is -0.7% (95% CI: -3.4%-1.7%) and the median of the absolute values of the prediction errors (MDAPE) as a measure of precision is 7.9% (95% CI: 6.0%-9.8%). In both HDF and LF-HD, the optimal vancomycin loading dose for a typical patient weighing 70 kg is 1700 mg when administered during the last 60 minutes of the hemodialysis session. Maintenance dose is 700 mg if administered during the last 30 or 60 minutes of the hemodialysis session.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The developed PPK model for HDF is also capable of predicting serum levels of vancomycin in patients on LF-HD. A dosing regimen was developed for the use of vancomycin in HDF and LF-HD.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Dialysis patients are typically inactive and their physical activity (PA) decreases over time. Uremic toxicity has been suggested as a potential causal factor of low PA in dialysis patients. Post-dilution high-volume online hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides greater higher molecular weight removal and studies suggest better clinical/patient-reported outcomes compared with hemodialysis (HD).<h4>Methods</h4>HDFIT was a randomized controlled trial at 13 clinics in Brazil that aimed to investigate the effects of HDF on measured PA (step counts) as a primary outcome. Stable HD patients (vintage 3-24 months) were randomized to receive HDF or high-flux HD. Treatment effect of HDF on the primary outcome from baseline to 3 and 6 months was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model.<h4>Results</h4>We randomized 195 patients (HDF 97; HD 98) between August 2016 and October 2017. Despite the achievement of a high convective volume in the majority of sessions and a positive impact on solute removal, the treatment effect HDF on the primary outcome was +538 [95% confidence interval (CI) -330 to 1407] steps/24 h after dialysis compared with HD, and was not statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the observed size of the treatment effect was modest and driven by steps taken between 1.5 and 24.0 h after dialysis, in particular between 20 and 24 h (+197 steps; 95% CI -95 to 488).<h4>Conclusions</h4>HDF did not have a statistically significant treatment effect on PA 24 h following dialysis, albeit effect sizes may be clinically meaningful and deserve further investigation.
Project description:The choice between hemodiafiltration (HDF) or high-flux hemodialysis (HD) to treat end-stage kidney disease remains a matter of debate. The duration of recovery time after treatment has been associated with mortality, affects quality of life, and may therefore be important in informing patient choice. We aimed to establish whether recovery time is influenced by treatment with HDF or HD.Randomized patient-blinded crossover trial.100 patients with end-stage kidney disease were enrolled from 2 satellite dialysis units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.8 weeks of HD followed by 8 weeks of online postdilution HDF or vice versa.Posttreatment recovery time, symptomatic hypotension events, dialysis circuit clotting events, and biochemical parameters.Patient-reported recovery time in minutes, incidence of adverse events during treatments, hematology and biochemistry results, quality-of-life questionnaire.There was no overall difference in recovery time between treatments (medians for HDF vs HD of 47.5 [IQR, 0-240] vs 30 [IQR, 0-210] minutes, respectively; P=0.9). During HDF treatment, there were significant increases in rates of symptomatic hypotension (8.0% in HDF vs 5.3% in HD; relative risk [RR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P<0.001) and intradialytic tendency to clotting (1.8% in HDF vs 0.7% in HD; RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-5.0; P=0.002). Serum albumin level was significantly lower during HDF (3.2 vs 3.3g/dL; P<0.001). Health-related quality-of-life scores were equivalent.Single center; mean achieved HDF convection volume, 20.6L.Patients blinded to whether they were receiving HD or HDF in a randomized controlled crossover study reported similar posttreatment recovery times and health-related quality-of-life scores.
Project description:The beneficial effects of renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade on residual renal function (RRF) in patients who have just initiated hemodialysis (HD) have been inconclusive. In this study, 935 patients with incident HD from a nationwide prospective observational cohort in Korea were included for analysis. The primary outcome showed that RRF as demonstrated by urine volume changes over 0, 3, and 12 months differed between the RAAS blockade and control groups. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to compare RRF between the groups. Patients in the RAAS group had a greater proportion of higher urine volume at study enrollment compared to the control group, but there was no difference in baseline characteristics, heart function, and dialysis-related indices. After adjusting for confounding factors, the RAAS group did not provide a significant benefit to RRF in a mixed-effects linear regression (p?=?0.51). Male gender, high Charlson comorbidity index, diuretic use, and high weekly ultrafiltration volume were associated with faster decline in RRF. The RAAS group failed to provide a protective effect for the development of anuria 1 year after initiating dialysis based on the multivariate logistic regression (OR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.13, p?=?0.57). In Korean patients with incident HD, RAAS blockade did not provide a protective effect for RRF after 1 year. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal treatment for preserving RRF in HD patients.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to high morbidity, mortality, and impaired health-related quality of life. While hemodialysis (HD) is the current life-saving standard of treatment for patients with ESRD, their quality of life (QoL) remains far from desirable. Online HDF (OL-HDF), due to its convenience, could improve the QoL of patients with ESRD, however, this remains uncertain.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to assess the body of evidence of OL-HDF compared to HD regarding QoL in patients with ESRD.<h4>Methods</h4>We comprehensively searched in multiple data bases from their inception to February 2018. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate appraised the quality and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated, in patients with ESRD and HD or OL-HDF, QoL (Short Form Health Survey with 36 questions (SF-36) with physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) as well as scores about social activity, fatigue, and emotion). A meta-analysis of each outcome of interest was performed using a random-effects model.<h4>Results</h4>Six moderate quality RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs including a total of 1,209 patients showed that OL-HDF was associated with a lower yet non-significant score of PCS: MD (mean difference) -0.77 (95% CI -1.94 to 0.41, p = 0.20), and MCS: MD -1.25 (95% CI -3.10 to 0.59, p = 0.18); indicating a poorer QoL in patients on OL-HDF. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs including a total of 845 patients showed OL-HDF was associated with a significant increase in the score of social activity compared to HD: SMD (standardized mean difference): 1.95 (95% CI 0.05 to 3.86, p = 0.04), indicating a better QoL in patients on OL-HDF; but regarding fatigue and emotion, there was no significant improvement when compared to HD by meta-analysis of 3 RCTs (133 patients).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The body of evidence suggests that OL-HDF does not improve QoL in patients with ESRD when compared to HD.
Project description:Connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) plays a key role in the pathogenesis of tissue fibrosis. The aminoterminal fragment of CTGF is a middle molecule that accumulates in chronic kidney disease. The aims of this study are to explore determinants of plasma CTGF in hemodialysis (HD) patients, investigate whether CTGF relates to all-cause mortality in HD patients, and investigate whether online-hemodiafiltration (HDF) lowers CTGF. Data from 404 patients participating in the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST) were analyzed. Patients were randomized to low-flux HD or HDF. Pre-dialysis CTGF was measured by sandwich ELISA at baseline, after six and 12 months. CTGF was inversely related in multivariable analysis to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (p < 0.001) and positively to cardiovascular disease (CVD) (p = 0.006), dialysis vintage (p < 0.001), interleukin-6 (p < 0.001), beta-2-microglobulin (p = 0.045), polycystic kidney disease (p < 0.001), tubulointerstitial nephritis (p = 0.002), and renal vascular disease (p = 0.041). Patients in the highest quartile had a higher mortality risk compared to those in the lowest quartile (HR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.02-2.88, p = 0.043). HDF lowered CTGF with 4.8% between baseline and six months, whereas during HD, CTGF increased with 4.9% (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in HD patients, CTGF is related to GFR, CVD and underlying renal disease and increased the risk of all-cause mortality. HDF reduces CTGF.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Calciprotein particles (CPPs) may play an important role in the calcification process. The calcification propensity of serum (T50) is highly predictive of all-cause mortality in chronic kidney disease patients. Whether T50 is therapeutically improvable, by high-flux hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF), has not been studied yet. METHODS:We designed a cross-sectional single center study, and included stable prevalent in-center dialysis patients on HD or HDF. Patients were divided into two groups based on dialysis modality, were on a thrice-weekly schedule, had a dialysis vintage of > 3 months and vascular access providing a blood flow rate > 300 ml/min. Calcification propensity of serum was measured by the time of transformation from primary to secondary CPP (T50 test), by time-resolved nephelometry. RESULTS:We included 64 patients, mean convective volume was 21.7L (SD 3.3L). In the pooled analysis, T50 levels increased in both the HD and HDF group with pre- and post-dialysis (mean (SD)) of 244(64) - 301(57) and 253(55) - 304(61) min respectively (P = 0.43(HD vs. HDF)). The mean increase in T50 was 26.29% for HD and 21.97% for HDF patients (P = 0.61 (HD vs. HDF)). The delta values (?) of calcium, phosphate and serum albumin were equal in both groups. Baseline T50 was negatively correlated with phosphate, and positively correlated with serum magnesium and fetuin-A. The ?T50 was mostly influenced by ? phosphate (r = -0.342; P = 0.002 HD and r = -0.396; P<0.001 HDF) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:HD and HDF patients present with same baseline T50 calcification propensity values pre-dialysis. Calcification propensity is significantly improved during both HD and HDF sessions without significant differences between both modalities.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD), characterised by 8-hour sessions??3?times a week, is known to improve clinical parameters in the short term compared with conventional-schedule haemodialysis (HD), generally 3×3.5-4?hours a week. We studied long-term effects of NHD and used patients on conventional HD/haemodiafiltration (HDF) as controls. DESIGN:Four-year prospective follow-up of patients who switched to NHD; we compared patients with patients on HD/HDF using propensity score matching. SETTING:28 Dutch dialysis centres. PARTICIPANTS:We included 159 patients starting with NHD any time since 2004, aged 56.7±12.9 years, with median dialysis vintage 2.3 (0.9-5.1) years. We propensity-score matched 100 patients on NHD to 100 on HD/HDF. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Control of hypertension (predialysis blood pressure, number of antihypertensives), phosphate (phosphate, number of phosphate binders), nutritional status and inflammation (albumin, C reactive protein and postdialysis weight) and anaemia (erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) resistance). RESULTS:Switching to NHD was associated with a non-significant reduction of antihypertensives compared with HD/HDF (OR <2 types 2.17, 95%?CI 0.86 to 5.50, P=0.11); and a prolonged lower need for phosphate binders (OR <2 types 1.83, 95%?CI 1.10 to 3.03, P=0.02). NHD was not associated with significant changes in blood pressure or phosphate. NHD was associated with significantly higher albumin over time compared with HD/HDF (0.70?g/L/year, 95%?CI 0.10 to 1.30, P=0.02). ESA resistance decreased significantly in NHD compared with HD/HDF, resulting in a 33% lower ESA dose in the long term. CONCLUSIONS:After switching to NHD, the lower need for antihypertensives, phosphate binders and ESA persists for at least 4 years. These sustained improvements in NHD contrast significantly with the course of these parameters during continued treatment with conventional-schedule HD and HDF. NHD provides an optimal form of dialysis, also suitable for patients expected to have a long waiting time for transplantation or those convicted to indefinite dialysis.
Project description:Hemodynamic stress during hemodialysis (HD) results in recurrent segmental ischemic injury (myocardial stunning) that drives cumulative cardiac damage. We performed a fully comprehensive study of the cardiovascular effect of dialysis sessions using intradialytic cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the comparative acute effects of standard HD versus hemodiafiltration (HDF) in stable patients. We randomly allocated 12 patients on HD (ages 32-72 years old) to either HD or HDF. Patients were stabilized on a modality for 2 weeks before undergoing serial cardiac MRI assessment during dialysis. Patients then crossed over to the other modality and were rescanned after 2 weeks. Cardiac MRI measurements included cardiac index, stroke volume index, global and regional contractile function (myocardial strain), coronary artery flow, and myocardial perfusion. Patients had mean±SEM ultrafiltration rates of 3.8±2.9 ml/kg per hour during HD and 4.4±2.5 ml/kg per hour during HDF (P=0.29), and both modalities provided a similar degree of cooling. All measures of systolic contractile function fell during HD and HDF, with partial recovery after dialysis. All patients experienced some degree of segmental left ventricular dysfunction, with severity proportional to ultrafiltration rate and BP reduction. Myocardial perfusion decreased significantly during HD and HDF. Treatment modality did not influence any of the cardiovascular responses to dialysis. In conclusion, in this randomized, crossover study, there was no significant difference in the cardiovascular response to HDF or HD with cooled dialysate as assessed with intradialytic MRI.
Project description:BACKGROUND:On-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) clears more azotemic toxins compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HD). The response to vaccination is impaired in dialysis patients. We wished to determine whether the immune responses to influenza vaccine in dialysis patients treated by HDF were stronger than those treated by HD. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a prospective cohort study in chronic dialysis patients during the 2016 and 2017 influenza seasons. All participants received a single standard dose of trivalent influenza vaccine, and we studied the elicited humoral immune response by hemagglutination inhibition test, and cell-mediated immune response by enumeration of lymphocyte cellular markers and proliferation assays. RESULTS:We immunized 60 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients: 42 (70%) treated with HD and 18 patients (30%) with HDF. The median (interquartile range) age was 65.0 (55.0-74.5) years. All patients developed seroprotection to at least one influenza vaccine strain at one month post-vaccination, and did not differ between groups. By logistic regression, age was the only factor independently associated with seroconversion to all vaccine strains (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.98; p = 0.022). Seroprotection to all vaccine strains was sustained for longer in patients treated with HDF, and the results remained the same after age adjustment. For cellular immune response, patients who seroconverted to all vaccine strains had higher CD38+ T cell subpopulations pre-vaccination. Patients treated by HDF had higher lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. CONCLUSIONS:Seroconversion to all influenza vaccine strains was associated with age. Patients treated with HDF demonstrated seroprotection was sustained for longer compared to those treated by HD and greater lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. These encouraging results for HDF require confirmation in a larger dialysis population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04122222.