Dataset Information

Dialyzer Reuse and Outcomes of High Flux Dialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The bulk of randomized trial evidence for the expanding use of High Flux (HF) hemodialysis worldwide comes from two randomized controlled trials, one of which (HEMODIALYSIS, HEMO) allowed, while the other (Membrane Outcomes Permeability, MPO) excluded, the reuse of membranes. It is not known whether dialyzer reuse has a differential impact on outcomes with HF vs low flyx (LF) dialyzers.

Methods

Proportional Hazards Models and Joint Models for longitudinal measures and survival outcomes were used in HEMO to analyze the relationship between ?2-microglobulin (?2M) concentration, flux, and reuse. Meta-analysis and regression techniques were used to synthesize the evidence for HF dialysis from HEMO and MPO.

Findings

In HEMO, minimally reused (< 6 times) HF dialyzers were associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 95%CI: 0.48-0.92, p = 0.015), 0.64 (95%CI: 0.44 - 0.95, p = 0.03), 0.61 (95%CI: 0.41 - 0.90, p = 0.012), 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28 - 1.02, p = 0.057) relative to minimally reused LF ones for all cause, cardiovascular, cardiac and infectious mortality respectively. These relationships reversed for extensively reused membranes (p for interaction between reuse and flux < 0.001, p = 0.005) for death from all cause and cardiovascular causes, while similar trends were noted for cardiac and infectious mortality (p of interaction between reuse and flux of 0.10 and 0.08 respectively). Reduction of ?2M explained only 1/3 of the effect of minimally reused HF dialyzers on all cause mortality, while non-?2M related factors explained the apparent attenuation of the benefit with more extensively reused dialyzers. Meta-regression of HEMO and MPO estimated an adjusted HR of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.51-0.78) for non-reused HF dialyzers compared with non-reused LF membranes.

Conclusions

This secondary analysis and synthesis of two large hemodialysis trials supports the widespread use of HF dialyzers in clinical hemodialysis over the last decade. A mechanistic understanding of the effects of HF dialysis and the reuse process on dialyzers may suggest novel biomarkers for uremic toxicity and may accelerate membrane technology innovations that will improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Argyropoulos C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4461247 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 .

Project description:BackgroundRegional anticoagulation with citrate during renal replacement therapy (RRT) reduces the risk of bleeding, extends dialyzer lifespan and is cost-effective. Therefore, current guidelines recommend its use if patients are not anticoagulated for another reason and if there are no contraindications against citrate. RRT with regional citrate anticoagulation has been established in critically ill patients as continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) to reduce citrate load. However, CVVHD is inferior regarding middle molecule clearance compared to continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH). The use of a high cut-off dialyzer in CVVHD may thus present an option for middle molecule clearance similar to CVVH. This may allow combining the advantages of both techniques.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, single-blinded single-center-trial, sixty patients with acute renal failure and established indication for renal replacement therapy were randomized 1:1 into two groups. The control group was put on CVVHD using regional citrate anticoagulation and a high-flux dialyzer, while the intervention group was on CVVHD using regional citrate anticoagulation and a high-cut-off dialyzer. The concentrations of urea, creatinine, β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, interleukin 6 and albumin were measured pre- and post-dialyzer 1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours after initiating CVVHD.ResultsMean plasma clearance for β2-microglobulin was 19.6±5.8 ml/min in the intervention group vs. 12.2±3.6 ml/min in the control group (p<0.001). For myoglobin (8.0±4.5 ml/min vs. 0.2±3.6 ml/min, p<0.001) and IL-6 (1.5±4.3 vs. -2.5±3.5 ml/min, p = 0.002) a higher mean plasma clearance using high-cut-off dialyzer could be detected too, but no difference for urea, creatinine and albumin could be observed concerning this parameter between the two groups.ConclusionCVVHD using a high cut-off dialyzer results in more effective middle molecule clearance than that with high-flux dialyzer.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00005254, registered 26th November 2013).

Project description:IntroductionIn cases of myeloma cast nephropathy in need of haemodialysis (HD), reduction of free light chains using HD with High-Cut-Off filters (HCO-HD), in combination with chemotherapy, may be associated with better renal recovery. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of haemodiafiltration (HDF) in reducing free light chain levels using a less expensive heat sterilized high-flux polyphenylene HF dialyzer (HF-HDF).MethodsIn a single-centre prospective cohort study, 327 dialysis sessions were performed using a 2.2 m2 heat sterilized high-flux polyphenylene HF dialyzer (Phylther HF22SD), a small (1.1m2) or large (2.1 m2) high-cut-off (HCO) dialyzer (HCOS and HCOL) in a cohort of 16 patients presenting with dialysis-dependent acute cast nephropathy and elevated free light chains (10 kappa, 6 lambda). The outcomes of the study were the mean reduction ratio (RR) of kappa and lambda, the proportion of treatments with an RR of at least 0.65, albumin loss and the description of patient outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using linear and logistic regression through generalized estimating equation analysis so as to take into account repeated observation within subjects and adjust for session duration.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the estimated marginal mean of kappa RR, which were respectively 0.67, 0.69 and 0.70 with HCOL-HD, HCOS-HDF and HF-HDF (P = 0.950). The estimated marginal mean of the proportions of treatments with a kappa RR ≥0.65 were 68%, 63% and 71% with HCOL-HD, HCOS-HDF and HF-HDF, respectively (P = 0.913). The estimated marginal mean of lambda RR were higher with HCOL-HDF (0.78), compared to HCOL-HD and HF-HDF (0.62, and 0.61 respectively). The estimated marginal mean proportion of treatments with a lambda RR ≥0.65 were higher with HCOL-HDF (81%), compared to 57% in HF-HDF (P = 0.042). The median albumin loss were 7, 21 and 63 g/session with HF-HDF, HCOL-HD and HCOL-HDF respectively (P = 0.044). Among survivors, 9 out of 10 episodes of acute kidney injuries became dialysis-independent following a median time of renal replacement therapy of 40 days (range 7-181).ConclusionTherefore, in patients with acute dialysis-dependent myeloma cast nephropathy, in addition to chemotherapy, HDF with a heat sterilized high-flux polyphenylene HF dialyzer could offer an alternative to HCO dialysis for extracorporeal kappa reduction with lower albumin loss.

Project description:BackgroundMore than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure.MethodsThis is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up).DiscussionThis study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally.Trial registrationISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.