Dataset Information

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration.

ABSTRACT:

Background

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.

Study design

Randomized patient-blinded crossover trial.

Settings & participants

100 patients with end-stage kidney disease were enrolled from 2 satellite dialysis units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Intervention

8 weeks of HD followed by 8 weeks of online postdilution HDF or vice versa.

Outcomes

Posttreatment recovery time, symptomatic hypotension events, dialysis circuit clotting events, and biochemical parameters.

Measurements

Patient-reported recovery time in minutes, incidence of adverse events during treatments, hematology and biochemistry results, quality-of-life questionnaire.

Results

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.

Limitations

Single center; mean achieved HDF convection volume, 20.6L.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Smith JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5438239 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration.

Smith James R JR Zimmer Norica N Bell Elizabeth E Francq Bernard G BG McConnachie Alex A Mactier Robert R

American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 20161223 6

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Study design</h4>Randomized patient-blinded crossover trial.<h4>Settings & participants< ...[more]

PMID: 28024931

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: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.

Dataset Information

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration.

Background

Study design

Settings & participants

Intervention

Outcomes

Measurements

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets