Vitamins (A, C and E) and oxidative status of hemodialysis patients treated with HFR and HFR-Supra.

BACKGROUND: Hemodiafiltration with on-line endogenous reinfusion (HFR) is an extracorporeal dialytic method that combines diffusion, convection and adsorption. HFR-Supra (HFR-S) is a second-generation system with increased convective permeability and adsorption capability. Previous studies suggested that HFR reduces oxidative stress compared to standard haemodialysis. The principal aim of the present study was to compare antioxidant vitamins behavior and oxidative status of hemodialysis patients treated with HFR and HFR-S. METHODS: The study was designed as a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial. Forty-one patients were recruited from 19 dialysis centers and after a 4-month washout stabilization period in on-line hemodiafiltration (ol-HDF), each patient was randomized to a sequence of treatments (HFR-S followed by HFR or viceversa) with each treatment applied over 6 months. Plasma levels of Advanced Oxidation Protein Products, Total Antioxidant Status, vitamins C, A and E and their ligands (Retinol Binding Protein and total lipids) were measured at baseline and at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: Results show that the higher convective permeability of HFR-S with respect to HFR did not produce additional beneficial effects on the patients' oxidative status, a slight decrease of both Vitamin A and Retinol Binding Protein being the only difference registered in the long-term. However, as compared to ol-HDF, both the re-infusive techniques allowed to reduce the intradialytic loss of Vitamin C and, in the long-term, improve the patients' oxidative status and increase Retinol Binding Protein plasma values. No significant differences were found between the Vitamin C concentration of pre- and post cartridge UF neither in HFR-S nor in HFR showing that the sorbent resin does not adsorb Vitamin C. CONCLUSION: HFR-S and HFR are almost equivalent in term of impact on antioxidant vitamins and oxidative status of hemodialysis patients. Nonetheless, as compared to ol-HDF, both treatments produced a sensible sparing of Vitamin C and may represent a new approach for reducing oxidative stress and related complications in dialysis patients. Long-term effects of re-infusive treatments on patients' cardiovascular morbidity and mortality need to be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01492491 , retrospectively registered in 10 December 2011.

Phosphate levels in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, pre-dilution haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether convective therapies allow better control of serum phosphate (P) is still undefined, and no data are available concerning on-line haemofiltration (HF). The objectives of the study are to evaluate the effect of convective treatments (CTs) on P levels in comparison with low-flux haemodialysis (HD) and to evaluate the correlates of serum phosphate in a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This analysis was performed in the database of a multicentre, open label and randomized controlled study in which 146 chronic HD patients from 27 Italian centres were randomly assigned to HD (70 patients) or CTs: on-line pre-dilution HF (36 patients) or on-line pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (40 patients). RESULTS: CTs did not affect P (P = 0.526), calcium (Ca) (P = 0.849) and parathyroid hormone levels (P = 0.622). P levels were associated with the use of phosphate binders including aluminium-based phosphate binders (P < 0.001) and sevelamer (P < 0.001), pre-dialysis bicarbonate levels (P < 0.001) and pre-dialysis blood K levels (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis (generalized linear model), serum P was again largely unassociated with CTs (P = 0.631). Notably, participating centres were by far the strongest independent correlate of serum P, explaining 45.3% of the variance of serum P over the trial and this association was confirmed at multivariate analysis. Bicarbonate (P < 0.001) and, to a weaker extent, serum K (P = 0.032) were independently related to serum P. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-flux HD, CTs did not significantly affect serum P levels. Participating centres were the main source of P variability during the trial followed by treatment with phosphate binders, serum bicarbonate and, to a weak extent, serum potassium levels (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT011583309).

Comparison between hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration in a long-term prospective cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the convective treatment modes, on-line hemofiltration (HF) and on-line hemodiafiltration (HDF), regarding cardiovascular tolerance and effects on blood pressure, when applied under similar conditions in stable dialysis patients. METHODS: 39 clinically stable dialysis patients were treated with HD for 6 months (run-in period), followed by HF and HDF in random order for 2x6 months. Similar biocompatibility (same membrane and fluid quality), similar treatment time and urea Kt/V were achieved using AK100/200 ULTRA machines, polyamide membranes in low-flux and high-flux versions and appropriate adjustment of blood flow rate (Qb) and dilution ratio (Qb/Qinf). Predilution was used for HDF (target dilution ratio = 2/1 ) as well as for HF (target dilution ratio = 1/1). RESULTS: 30 patients completed the study; 5 dropped out for non-study related reasons and 4 for non-compliance. Treatment with HF in comparison to HDF showed fewer hypotension episodes during the sessions per patient and month (HF: 0.5, HDF 1.1; p = 0.017), less plasma expander administration per patient and month (HF: 35.9 ml, HDF: 103.1 ml; p = 0.035), fewer episodes of intra-session headache (HF: 0.1, HDF: 0.4; p = 0.06), and higher pre-session MAP (HF: 98.4 mmHg, HDF: 93.8 mmHg; p = 0.037). No significant difference was found in inter-treatment weight gain, post-session MAP, or pre-session plasma sodium. CONCLUSIONS: HF and HDF provide good control of intra-session symptoms and blood pressure in stable patients. Treatment with HF resulted in a significant reduction in intra-session hypotension and a slight but significant increase in pre-session MAP, caused by an increase in systolic BP without any effect on the prevalence of hypertension or the dose of antihypertensive drugs, all compared to HDF.