Dataset Information

Effect of haemodiafiltration vs conventional haemodialysis on growth and cardiovascular outcomes in children - the HDF, heart and height (3H) study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease is prevalent in children on dialysis and accounts for almost 30% of all deaths. Randomised trials in adults suggest that haemodiafiltration (HDF) with high convection volumes is associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality compared to high-flux haemodialysis (HD); however paediatric data are scarce. We designed the haemodiafiltration, heart and height (3H) study to test the hypothesis that children on HDF have an improved cardiovascular risk profile, growth and nutritional status and quality of life, compared to those on conventional HD. We performed a non-randomised parallel-arm intervention study within the International Paediatric Haemodialysis Network Registry comparing children on HDF and conventional HD to determine annualised change in cardiovascular end-points and growth. Here we present the 3H study design and baseline characteristics of the study population. METHODS:190 children were screened and 177 (106 on HD and 71 on HDF) recruited from 28 centres in 10 countries. There was no difference in age, underlying diagnosis, comorbidities, previous dialysis therapy, dialysis vintage, residual renal function, type of vascular access or blood flow between HD and HDF groups. High flux dialysers were used in 63% of HD patients and ultra-pure water was available in 52%. HDF patients achieved a median convection volume of 13.3 L/m2; this was associated with the blood flow rate only ((p?=?0.0004, r?=?0.42) and independent of access type (p?=?0.38). DISCUSSION:This is the largest study on dialysis outcomes in children that involves deep phenotyping across a wide range of cardiovascular, anthropometric, nutritional and health-related quality of life measures, to test the hypothesis that HDF leads to improved cardiovascular and growth outcomes compared to conventional HD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02063776 . The trial was prospectively registered on the 14 Feb 2014.

SUBMITTER: Shroff R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6086045 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of haemodiafiltration vs conventional haemodialysis on growth and cardiovascular outcomes in children - the HDF, heart and height (3H) study.

Shroff Rukshana R Bayazit Aysun A Stefanidis Constantinos J CJ Askiti Varvara V Azukaitis Karolis K Canpolat Nur N Agbas Ayse A Anarat Ali A Aoun Bilal B Bakkaloglu Sevcan S Bhowruth Devina D Borzych-Dużałka Dagmara D Bulut Ipek Kaplan IK Büscher Rainer R Dempster Claire C Duzova Ali A Habbig Sandra S Hayes Wesley W Hegde Shivram S Krid Saoussen S Licht Christoph C Litwin Mieczyslaw M Mayes Mark M Mir Sevgi S Nemec Rose R Obrycki Lukasz L Paglialonga Fabio F Picca Stefano S Ranchin Bruno B Samaille Charlotte C Shenoy Mohan M Sinha Manish M Smith Colette C Spasojevic Brankica B Vidal Enrico E Vondrák Karel K Yilmaz Alev A Zaloszyc Ariane A Fischbach Michel M Schaefer Franz F Schmitt Claus Peter CP

BMC nephrology 20180810 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cardiovascular disease is prevalent in children on dialysis and accounts for almost 30% of all deaths. Randomised trials in adults suggest that haemodiafiltration (HDF) with high convection volumes is associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality compared to high-flux haemodialysis (HD); however paediatric data are scarce. We designed the haemodiafiltration, heart and height (3H) study to test the hypothesis that children on HDF have an improved cardiovascular risk profile, ...[more]

PMID: 30097064

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients on dialysis have a high burden of bone-related comorbidities, including fractures. We report a post hoc analysis of the prospective cohort study HDF, Hearts and Heights (3H) to determine the prevalence and risk factors for chronic kidney disease-related bone disease in children on hemodiafiltration (HDF) and conventional hemodialysis (HD).MethodsThe baseline cross-sectional analysis included 144 children, of which 103 (61 HD, 42 HDF) completed 12-month follow-up. Circulating biomarkers of bone formation and resorption, inflammatory markers, fibroblast growth factor-23, and klotho were measured.ResultsInflammatory markers interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were lower in HDF than in HD cohorts at baseline and at 12 months (P < .001). Concentrations of bone formation (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) and resorption (tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b) markers were comparable between cohorts at baseline, but after 12-months the bone-specific alkaline phosphatase/tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b ratio increased in HDF (P = .004) and was unchanged in HD (P = .44). On adjusted analysis, the bone-specific alkaline phosphatase/tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b ratio was 2.66-fold lower (95% confidence interval, -3.91 to -1.41; P < .0001) in HD compared with HDF. Fibroblast growth factor-23 was comparable between groups at baseline (P = .52) but increased in HD (P < .0001) and remained unchanged in HDF (P = .34) at 12 months. Klotho levels were similar between groups and unchanged during follow-up. The fibroblast growth factor-23/klotho ratio was 3.86-fold higher (95% confidence interval, 2.15-6.93; P < .0001) after 12 months of HD compared with HDF.ConclusionChildren on HDF have an attenuated inflammatory profile, increased bone formation, and lower fibroblast growth factor-23/klotho ratios compared with those on HD. Long-term studies are required to determine the effects of an improved bone biomarker profile on fracture risk and cardiovascular health.

Project description:IntroductionEnd-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD.Methods and analysisThis international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberNetherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).

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.

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:Normalizing cardiovascular measurements for body size allows for comparison among children of different ages and for distinguishing pathologic changes from normal physiologic growth. Because of growing interest to use height for normalization, the aim of this study was to develop height-based normalization models and compare them to body surface area (BSA)-based normalization for aortic and left ventricular (LV) measurements. The study population consisted of healthy, non-obese children between 2 and 18 years of age enrolled in the Pediatric Heart Network Echo Z-Score Project. The echocardiographic study parameters included proximal aortic diameters at 3 locations, LV end-diastolic volume, and LV mass. Using the statistical methodology described in the original project, Z-scores based on height and BSA were determined for the study parameters and tested for any clinically significant relationships with age, sex, race, ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI). Normalization models based on height versus BSA were compared among underweight, normal weight, and overweight (but not obese) children in the study population. Z-scores based on height and BSA were calculated for the 5 study parameters and revealed no clinically significant relationships with age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Normalization based on height resulted in lower Z-scores in the underweight group compared to the overweight group, whereas normalization based on BSA resulted in higher Z-scores in the underweight group compared to the overweight group. In other words, increasing BMI had an opposite effect on height-based Z-scores compared to BSA-based Z-scores. Allometric normalization based on height and BSA for aortic and LV sizes is feasible. However, height-based normalization results in higher cardiovascular Z-scores in heavier children, and BSA-based normalization results in higher cardiovascular Z-scores in lighter children. Further studies are needed to assess the performance of these approaches in obese children with or without cardiac disease.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to review the performance of machine learning (ML) methods compared with conventional statistical models (CSMs) for predicting readmission and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and to present an approach to formally evaluate the quality of studies using ML algorithms for prediction modelling.Methods and resultsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EPUB, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, INSPEC, ACM Library, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included primary research articles published between January 2000 and July 2020 comparing ML and CSMs in mortality and readmission prognosis of initially hospitalized HF patients. Data were extracted and analysed by two independent reviewers. A modified CHARMS checklist was developed in consultation with ML and biostatistics experts for quality assessment and was utilized to evaluate studies for risk of bias. Of 4322 articles identified and screened by two independent reviewers, 172 were deemed eligible for a full-text review. The final set comprised 20 articles and 686 842 patients. ML methods included random forests (n = 11), decision trees (n = 5), regression trees (n = 3), support vector machines (n = 9), neural networks (n = 12), and Bayesian techniques (n = 3). CSMs included logistic regression (n = 16), Cox regression (n = 3), or Poisson regression (n = 3). In 15 studies, readmission was examined at multiple time points ranging from 30 to 180 day readmission, with the majority of studies (n = 12) presenting prediction models for 30 day readmission outcomes. Of a total of 21 time-point comparisons, ML-derived c-indices were higher than CSM-derived c-indices in 16 of the 21 comparisons. In seven studies, mortality was examined at 9 time points ranging from in-hospital mortality to 1 year survival; of these nine, seven reported higher c-indices using ML. Two of these seven studies reported survival analyses utilizing random survival forests in their ML prediction models. Both reported higher c-indices when using ML compared with CSMs. A limitation of studies using ML techniques was that the majority were not externally validated, and calibration was rarely assessed. In the only study that was externally validated in a separate dataset, ML was superior to CSMs (c-indices 0.913 vs. 0.835).ConclusionsML algorithms had better discrimination than CSMs in most studies aiming to predict risk of readmission and mortality in HF patients. Based on our review, there is a need for external validation of ML-based studies of prediction modelling. We suggest that ML-based studies should also be evaluated using clinical quality standards for prognosis research. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020134867.

Dataset Information

Effect of haemodiafiltration vs conventional haemodialysis on growth and cardiovascular outcomes in children - the HDF, heart and height (3H) study.

Publications

Effect of haemodiafiltration vs conventional haemodialysis on growth and cardiovascular outcomes in children - the HDF, heart and height (3H) study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets