Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion for uremic toxin removal in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To delineate the efficacy and safety profile of hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion (HFR) for uremic toxin removal in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). METHODS: Patients who have been on MHD for a period of at least 3 months were enrolled. Each subject underwent one HFR and one hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatment. Blood samples were collected before and after a single HFR or HDF treatment to test uremic toxin levels and to calculate clearance rate. The primary efficacy endpoint was to compare uremic toxin levels of indoxyl sulfate (IS), λ-free light chains (λFLC), and ß2-microglobulin (ß2-MG) before and after HFR treatment. Secondary efficacy endpoints was to compare the levels of urea, interleukin-6 (IL-6), P-cresol, chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40), leptin (LEP), hippuric acid (HPA), trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) before and after HFR treatment. The study also undertook a comparative analysis of uremic toxin clearance between a single HFR and HDF treatment. Meanwhile, the lever of serum albumin and branched-chain amino acids before and after a single HFR or HDF treatment were compared. In terms of safety, the study was meticulous in recording vital signs and the incidence of adverse events throughout its duration. RESULTS: The study enrolled 20 patients. After a single HFR treatment, levels of IS, λFLC, ß2-MG, IL-6, P-cresol, YKL-40, LEP, HPA, TMAO, ADMA, TNF-α, and FGF23 significantly decreased (p < 0.001 for all). The clearance rates of λFLC, ß2-MG, IL-6, LEP, and TNF-α were significantly higher in HFR compared to HDF (p values: 0.036, 0.042, 0.041, 0.019, and 0.036, respectively). Compared with pre-HFR and post-HFR treatment, levels of serum albumin, valine, and isoleucine showed no significant difference (p > 0.05), while post-HDF, levels of serum albumin significantly decreased (p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: HFR treatment effectively eliminates uremic toxins from the bloodstream of patients undergoing MHD, especially protein-bound toxins and large middle-molecule toxins. Additionally, it retains essential physiological compounds like albumin and branched-chain amino acids, underscoring its commendable safety profile.

Relationship between effective blood flow rate and clinical outcomes in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a single-center study.

The association between blood flow rate (BFR) and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) is inconclusive. This retrospective study included 175 patients undergoing MHD treatment between July 2015 and March 2022, divided into two groups based on time-averaged effective blood flow rate (eBFR) median value. We investigated arteriovenous fistula (AVF) outcomes and the association of eBFR with all-cause mortality and new major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Mean ± SD and median time-averaged eBFR values were 276 ± 24 and 275 mL/min, respectively. After adjusting for relevant factors including age, sex, vintage, diabetes, CVD, receiving hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatment and spKt/V, Cox models indicated a low time-averaged eBFR (≤ 275 ml/min) was associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 14.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.14-64.1) and new MACE (HR 3.76; 95% CI, 1.91-7.40) in MHD patients. Continuous Cox models demonstrated each 20 ml/min increase in eBFR linked to a 63% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23-0.59) and a 38% decrease in the occurrence of new MACE (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46-0.84). There was no significant difference in AVF outcomes between the two groups. Our study noted higher eBFR (>275 mL/min) is associated with lower risks of both all-cause mortality and new MACE compared with low eBFR (≤275 mL/min). Increased eBFR is not associated with a higher risk of AVF failure.

Hemodiafiltration: a synergy yet to be convincing.

The desperate attempt to improve mortality, morbidity, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in patients on hemodialysis has led to multiple attempts to improve the different modes, frequencies, and durations of dialysis sessions in the last few decades. Nothing has been more appealing than the combination of diffusion and convection in the form of hemodiafiltration. Despite the concrete evidence of better clearance of middle weight molecules and better hemodynamic stability, tangible evidence to support the universal adoption is still at a distance. Survival benefits seen in selected groups who are likely to tolerate hemodiafiltration with better vascular access and with lower comorbid burden, need to be extended to real life dialysis patients who are older than the population studied and have significantly higher comorbid burden. Technical demands of initiation hemodiafiltration, the associated costs, and the incremental benefits targeted, along with patient-reported outcomes, need to be explored further before recommending hemodiafiltration as the mode of choice.

Clinical Efficacy and Long-term Prognosis of High Flux Hemodialysis Combined with Different Frequency Hemodiafiltration in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Uremia.

INTRODUCTION: To analyze the clinical efficacy and long-term prognosis of high flux hemodialysis (HFHD) combined with different frequency hemodiafiltration (HDF) in uremic patients. METHODS: 86 middle-aged and elderly patients with uremia were divided into the HF group (HFHD combined with high-frequency HDF) and the LF group (HFHD combined with low-frequency HDF). The changes between the two groups in various indicators after 12 months of dialysis and the survival rate at 5 years of follow-up were compared. We used SPSS 25.0 software for data analysis. RESULTS: The differences of the levels of serum albumin, hemoglobin and transferrin in HF Group was significantly higher than LF Group before and after treatment (P < .05). The differences of the levels and clearance rate of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, ß2-microglobulin and cysteine protease inhibitor C in the patients' blood after dialysis were significantly higher in HF Group than in LF Group (P < .05). The all-cause mortality rate, new cardiovascular event rate, new cerebrovascular event rate, and new infection event rate of HF Group were significantly lower than those of LFHD group, respectively (P < .05). The LF Group had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality events, new cardiovascular cerebrovascular and infectious events than the HF Group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: 1 week/time HDF combined with HFHD can more effectively eliminate the vascular related toxins in middle-aged and elderly patients with uremia, improve their nutritional status, treatment effect, and long-term prognosis.  DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.7864.

Controversy on the CONVINCE study findings: the PRO take.

The CONVINCE study, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveals a groundbreaking 23% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality among end-stage kidney patients undergoing high convective volume hemodiafiltration. This significant finding challenges the conventional use of high-flux hemodialysis and offers hope for improving outcomes in chronic kidney disease patients. While some controversies surround the study's findings, including concerns about generalizability and the causes of death, it is essential to acknowledge the study's design and its main outcomes. The CONVINCE study, part of the HORIZON 2020 project, enrolled 1360 patients and demonstrated the superiority of hemodiafiltration in reducing all-cause mortality overall, as well as in specific patient subgroups (elderly, short vintage, non-diabetic, and those without cardiac issues). Interestingly, it was shown that hemodiafiltration had a protective effect against infection, including COVID-19. Future research will address sustainability, dose scaling effects, identification of subgroups especially likely to benefit and cost-effectiveness. However, for now, the findings strongly support a broader adoption of hemodiafiltration in renal replacement therapy, marking a significant advancement in the field.

Hemodiafiltration for children with stage 5 chronic kidney disease: technical aspects and outcomes.

Despite significant medical and technical improvements in the field of dialysis, the morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 on dialysis remains extremely high. Hemodiafiltration (HDF), a dialysis method that combines the two main principles of hemodialysis (HD) and hemofiltration-diffusion and convection-has had a positive impact on survival when delivered with a high convective dose. Improved outcomes with HDF have been attributed to the following factors: HDF removes middle molecular weight uremic toxins including inflammatory cytokines, increases hemodynamic stability, and reduces inflammation and oxidative stress compared to conventional HD. Two randomized trials in adults have shown improved survival with HDF compared to high-flux HD. A large prospective cohort study in children has shown that HDF attenuated the progression of cardiovascular disease, improved bone turnover and growth, reduced inflammation, and improved blood pressure control compared to conventional HD. Importantly, children on HDF reported fewer headaches, dizziness, and cramps; had increased physical activity; and improved school attendance compared to those on HD. In this educational review, we discuss the technical aspects of HDF and results from pediatric studies, comparing outcomes on HDF vs. conventional HD. Convective volume, the cornerstone of treatment with HDF and a key determinant of outcomes in adult randomized trials, is discussed in detail, including the practical aspects of achieving an optimal convective volume.

Protective measures against ultrafiltration failure in peritoneal dialysis patients

Ultrafiltration failure in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis is a condition with an incidence that increases over time. It is related to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and is a major cause of the abandonment of the treatment technique. Because the number of patients undergoing renal replacement therapy is increasing with society aging and because approximately 10 percent of this population is treated with peritoneal dialysis, this matter is becoming more common in everyday practice for clinicians involved in the care of patients with chronic renal failure. In this review, we summarize the available measures used to prevent and treat ultrafiltration failure and the current state of research in the field, both in the experimental and clinical settings, focusing on the possible clinical applications of recent findings.