Dataset Information

Removal and rebound kinetics of cystatin C in high-flux hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Cystatin C is a 13.3 kD middle molecule of similar size to β2-microglobulin and a marker of GFR in CKD. This study aimed to determine cystatin C kinetics in hemodialysis to understand whether blood concentrations may predict residual renal function and middle-molecule clearance.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Cystatin C removal and rebound kinetics were studied in 24 patients on high-flux hemodialysis or hemodiafiltration. To determine whether cystatin C concentrations are predictable, an iterative two-pool mathematical model was applied.

Results

Cystatin C was cleared effectively, although less than β2-microglobulin (reduction ratios ± SD are 39% ± 11 and 51% ± 11). Cystatin C rebounded to 95% ± 5% of predialysis concentration by 12 hours postdialysis. The two-pool kinetic model showed excellent goodness of fit. Modeled extracellular cystatin C pool volume is smaller than that predicted, comprising 25.5% ± 9.2 of total body water. Iterated parameters, including nonrenal clearance, showed wide interindividual variation. Modeled nonrenal clearance was substantially higher than renal clearance in this population at 25.1 ± 6.6 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) body surface area.

Conclusions

Plasma cystatin C levels may be used to measure middle-molecule clearance. Levels rebound substantially postdialysis and plateau in the interdialytic period. At low GFR, nonrenal clearance predominates over renal clearance, and its interindividual variation will limit use of cystatin C to predict residual renal function in advanced kidney disease.

SUBMITTER: Vilar E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4078955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients universally suffer from excess toxin load. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) has shown its potential in better removal of small as well as large sized toxins, but its efficacy is restricted by inter-compartmental clearance. Intra-dialytic exercise on the other hand is also found to be effective for removal of toxins; the augmented removal is apparently obtained by better perfusion of skeletal muscles and decreased inter-compartmental resistance. The aim of this trial is to compare the toxin removal outcome associated with intra-dialytic exercise in HD and with post-dilution HDF.The main hypothesis of this study is that intra-dialytic exercise enhances toxin removal by decreasing the inter-compartmental resistance, a major impediment for toxin removal. To compare the HDF and HD with exercise, the toxin rebound for urea, creatinine, phosphate, and ?2-microglobulin will be calculated after 2 hours of dialysis. Spent dialysate will also be collected to calculate the removed toxin mass. To quantify the decrease in inter-compartmental resistance, the recently developed regional blood flow model will be employed. The study will be single center, randomized, self-control, open-label prospective clinical research where 15 study subjects will undergo three dialysis protocols (a) high flux HD, (b) post-dilution HDF, (c) high flux HD with exercise. Multiple blood samples during each study session will be collected to estimate the unknown model parameters.This will be the first study to investigate the exercise induced physiological change(s) responsible for enhanced toxin removal, and compare the toxin removal outcome both for small and middle sized toxins in HD with exercise and HDF. Successful completion of this clinical research will give important insights into exercise effect on factors responsible for enhanced toxin removal. The knowledge will give confidence for implementing, sustaining, and optimizing the exercise in routine dialysis care. We anticipate that toxin removal outcomes from intra-dialytic exercise session will be comparable to that obtained by standalone HDF. These results will encourage clinicians to combine HDF with intra-dialytic exercise for significantly enhanced toxin removal.ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01674153.

Project description:Randomized trials in adults have shown reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality on hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HD), but the mechanisms leading to improved outcomes are not clear. We studied biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress, anti-oxidant capacity and endothelial dysfunction in 22 children (13 female, age 8-15 years). All children received HD for at least 3 months, and were then switched to HDF, keeping all dialysis related parameters and dialysis time constant. All the biomarkers of inflammation (ß2-microglobulin, IL-6, IL-10, high sensitive C-reactive protein [hsCRP]), oxidative stress (nitrotyrosine, advanced glycation end-products [AGEs], oxidized low density lipoprotein [ox-LDL] and anti-oxidant capacity) and endothelial dysfunction (asymmetric dimethyl arginine [ADMA], symmetric dimethyl arginine [SDMA]), were comparable between incident and prevalent patients on HD, suggesting that even a short dialysis vintage of 3 months on HD increases inflammation and endothelial stress. After 3 months of HDF therapy there was a significant reduction in ß2-microglobulin (p<0.001), hCRP, ADMA, SDMA, AGEs, ox-LDL (p<0.01 for all) and an increase in total antioxidant capacity (p<0.001) compared to HD. All children were maintained on the same dialyser, dialysis water quality, dialysis time and blood flow speeds suggesting that improved clearances on HDF led to an improved biomarker profile. Even in children with residual renal function there was a significant reduction in ß2 microglobulin, hsCRP, SDMA, ox-LDL and AGEs on HDF compared to HD. Children with a lower blood flow had higher inflammatory status (higher IL-6/IL-10 ratio; p = 0.04, r = -0.43). Children who achieved a higher convective volume (≥median 12.8L/m2) had lower ox-LDL (p = 0.02). In conclusion, we have shown that a significant improvement in inflammation, antioxidant capacity and endothelial risk profile is achieved even within a short time (3 months) on HDF compared to HD treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02063776.

Project description:This prospective multicenter randomized comparative cross-over trial aimed at evaluating the influence of hemodialysis vs post-dilution hemodiafiltration with high-flux dialyzers in solute clearance and biocompatibility profile. 32 patients were sequentially dialyzed with Leoceed-21HX, Polypure-22S+, Rexsys-27H and VIE-21A. Primary outcome was β2-microglobulin removal. Secondary outcomes were (i) extraction of other uremic solutes (ii) parameters of inflammation and nutrition and (iii) comparative quantification of perdialytic albumin losses (using total 'TDC' vs partial 'PDC' collection of dialysate). Significant increases in removal rates of β2-microglobulin (84.7 ± 0.8 vs 71.6 ± 0.8 mg/L), myoglobin (65.9 ± 1.3 vs 38.6 ± 1.3 µg/L), free immunoglobulin light chains Kappa (74.9 ± 0.8 vs 55.6 ± 0.8 mg/L), β-trace protein (54.8 ± 1.3 vs 26.8 ± 1.4 mg/L) and orosomucoid (11.0 ± 1.1 vs 6.0 ± 1.1 g/L) but not myostatin (14.8 ± 1.5 vs 13.0 ± 1.5 ng/mL) were observed in HDF compared to HD when pooling all dialyzers. Rexsys and VIE-A use in both HD and HDF subgroups was associated to a better removal of middle/large-size molecules compared to Leoceed and Polypure, except β2-microglobulin for Rexsys. Inflammatory parameters were unchanged between dialyzers without any interaction with dialysis modality. Mean dialysate albumin loss was comparable between TDC and PDC (1.855 vs 1.826 g/session for TDC and PDC respectively). In addition, a significant difference in albumin loss was observed between dialyzers with the highest value (4.5 g/session) observed using Rexsys. Use of all dialyzers was associated with good removals of the large spectrum of uremic toxins tested and good biocompatibility profiles, with an additional gain in removal performances with HDF. Larger surface area, thinner wall and resultant very high ultrafiltration coefficient of Rexsys should be taken into account in its clear performance advantages.

Project description:BackgroundMyoglobin clearance in acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy is important because myoglobin has direct renal toxic effects. Clinical data comparing different modalities of renal replacement therapy addressing myoglobin clearance are limited. This study aimed to compare two renal replacement modalities regarding myoglobin clearance.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, single-blinded, single-center trial, 70 critically ill patients requiring renal replacement therapy were randomized 1:1 into an intervention arm using continuous veno-venous hemodialysis with high cutoff dialyzer and a control arm using continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration postdilution with high-flux dialyzer. Regional citrate anticoagulation was used in both groups to maintain the extracorporeal circuit. The concentrations of myoglobin, urea, creatinine, β2-microglobulin, interleukin-6 and albumin were measured before and after the dialyzer at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h after initiating continuous renal replacement therapy.ResultsThirty-three patients were allocated to the control arm (CVVHDF with high-flux dialyzer) and 35 patients to the intervention arm (CVVHD with high cutoff dialyzer). Myoglobin clearance, as a primary endpoint, was significantly better in the intervention arm than in the control arm throughout the whole study period. The clearance values for urea and creatinine were higher in the control arm. There was no measurable albumin clearance in both arms. The clearance data for β2-microglobulin and interleukin-6 were non-inferior in the intervention arm compared to those for the control arm. Dialyzer lifespan was 57.0 [38.0, 72.0] hours in the control arm and 70.0 [56.75, 72.0] hours in the intervention arm (p = 0.029).ConclusionsMyoglobin clearance using continuous veno-venous hemodialysis with high cutoff dialyzer and regional citrate anticoagulation is better than that with continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration with regional citrate anticoagulation.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00012407); date of registration 23/05/2017. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012407 .