Dataset Information

Mixed- versus predilution hemodiafiltration effects on convection volume and small and middle molecule clearance in hemodialysis patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of newly developed mixed-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) can supplement the weaknesses of pre- and postdilution HDF. However, it is unclear whether mixed-HDF performs well compared to predilution HDF.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, open-labeled, randomized controlled trial from two hemodialysis centers in Korea. Between January 2017 and September 2019, 60 patients who underwent chronic hemodialysis were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either predilution HDF (n = 30) or mixed-HDF (n = 30) for 6 months. We compared convection volume, changes in small- and medium-sized molecule clearance, high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) level, and dialysis-related parameters between the two dialysis modalities.

Results

A mean effective convection volume of 41.0 ± 10.3 L/session in the predilution HDF group and 51.5 ± 9.0 L/session in the mixed-HDF group was obtained by averaging values of three time-points. The difference in effective convection volume between the groups was 10.5 ± 1.3 L/session. This met the preset noninferiority criteria, suggesting that mixed-HDF was noninferior to predilution HDF. Moreover, the β2-microglobulin reduction rate was greater in the mixed-HDF group than in the predilution HDF group, while mixed-HDF provided greater transmembrane pressure. There were no significant between-group differences in Kt/V urea levels, changes in predialysis hs-CRP levels, proportions of overhydration, or blood pressure values. Symptomatic intradialytic hypotension episodes and other adverse events occurred similarly in the two groups.

Conclusion

Use of mixed-HDF was comparable to predilution HDF in terms of delivered convection volume and clinical parameters. Moreover, mixed-HDF provided better β2-microglobulin clearance than predilution HDF.

SUBMITTER: Park KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8476308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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, ?2-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 ?2-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:BackgroundAnemia is a major comorbidity of patients with end-stage renal disease and poses an enormous economic burden to health-care systems. High dose erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. We explored whether mixed-dilution hemodiafiltration (Mixed-HDF), based on its innovative substitution modality, may improve anemia outcomes compared to the traditional post-dilution hemodiafiltration (Post-HDF).MethodsWe included 174 adult prevalent dialysis patients (87 on Mixed-HDF, 87 on Post-HDF) treated in 24 NephroCare dialysis centers between January 2010 and August 2016 into this retrospective cohort study. All patients were dialyzed three times per week and had fistula/graft as vascular access. Patients were matched at baseline and followed over a one-year period. The courses of hemoglobin levels (Hb) and monthly ESA consumption were compared between the two groups with linear mixed models.ResultsMean baseline Hb was 11.9±1.3 and 11.8±1.1g/dl in patients on Mixed- and Post-HDF, respectively. While Hb remained stable in patients on Mixed-HDF, it decreased slightly in patients on Post-HDF (at month 12: 11.8±1.2 vs 11.1±1.2g/dl). This tendency was confirmed by our linear mixed model (p = 0.0514 for treatment x time interaction). Baseline median ESA consumption was 6000 [Q1:0;Q3:16000] IU/4 weeks in both groups. Throughout the observation period ESA doses tended to be lower in the Mixed-HDF group (4000 [Q1:0;Q3:16000] vs 8000 [Q1:0;Q3:20000] IU/4 weeks at month 12; p = 0.0791 for treatment x time interaction). Sensitivity analyses, adjusting for differences not covered by matching at baseline, strengthened our results (Hb: p = 0.0124; ESA: p = 0.0687).ConclusionsResults of our explorative study suggest that patients on Mixed-HDF may have clinical benefits in terms of anemia management. This may also have a beneficial economic impact. Future studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis-generating results and to provide additional evidence on the potential beneficial effects of Mixed-HDF.