Effect of centre- and patient-related factors on uptake of haemodiafiltration in Australia and New Zealand: A cohort study using ANZDATA.

BACKGROUND: The use of haemodiafiltration (HDF) for the management of patients with end-stage kidney failure is increasing worldwide. Factors associated with HDF use have not been studied and may vary in different countries and jurisdictions. The aim of this study was to document the pattern of increase and variability in uptake of HDF in Australia and New Zealand, and to describe patient- and centre-related factors associated with its use. METHODS: Using the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, all incident patients commencing haemodialysis (HD) between 2000 and 2014 were included. The primary outcome was HDF commencement over time, which was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression stratified by country. RESULTS: Of 27 433 patients starting HD, 3339 (14.4%) of 23 194 patients in Australia and 810 (19.1%) of 4239 in New Zealand received HDF. HDF uptake increased over time in both countries but was more rapid in New Zealand than Australia. In Australia, HDF use was more likely in males (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-1.24, P = 0.009) and less likely with older age (reference <40 years; 40-54 years OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.72-0.99; 55-69 years OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.67-0.91; >70 years OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.41-0.56); higher body mass index (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2 OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.46-0.84; 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 reference; >30 kg/m2 OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.33-1.61), chronic lung disease (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76-0.94; P < 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.67-0.85; P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.70-0.85; P < 0.001). No association was identified with race. In New Zealand, HDF use was more likely in Maori and Pacific Islanders (OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.05-1.66) and Asians (OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.15-2.68) compared to Caucasians, and less likely in males (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.62-0.94; P = 0.01). No association was identified with BMI or co-morbidities. In both countries, centres with a higher ratio of HD to peritoneal dialysis (PD) were more likely to prescribe HDF. Larger Australian centres were more likely to prescribe HDF (36-147 new patients/year OR = 26.75, 95% CI = 18.54-38.59; 17-35/year OR = 7.51, 95% CI = 5.35-10.55; 7-16/year OR = 3.00; 95% CI = 2.19-4.13; ≤6/year reference). CONCLUSION: Haemodiafiltration uptake is increasing, variable and associated with both patient and centre characteristics. Centre characteristics not explicitly captured elsewhere explained 36% of variability in HDF uptake in Australia and 48% in New Zealand.

Design and methodology of the impact of HemoDiaFIlTration on physical activity and self-reported outcomes: a randomized controlled trial (HDFIT trial) in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: End stage renal disease (ESRD) patients require a renal replacement therapy (RRT) to filter accumulated toxins and remove excess water, which are associated with impaired physical function. Hemodialysis (HD) removes middle-molecular weight (MMW) toxins less efficiently compared to hemodiafiltration (HDF); we hypothesized HDF may improve physical function. We detailed the design and methodology of the HDFIT protocol that is testing whether changing from HD to HDF effects physical activity levels and various outcomes. METHODS: HDFIT is a prospective, multi-center, unblinded, randomized control trial (RCT) investigating the impact of dialysis modality (HDF verses HD) on objectively measured physical activity levels, self-reported quality of life, and clinical/non-clinical outcomes. Clinically stable patients with HD vintage of 3 to 24 months without any severe limitation ambulation were recruited from sites throughout southern Brazil. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either: 1) be treated with high volume online HDF for 6 months, or 2) continue being treated with high-flux HD. This study includes run-in and randomization visits (baseline), 3- and 6-month study visits during the interventional period, and a 12-month observational follow up. The primary outcome is the difference in the change in steps per 24 h on dialysis days from baseline to the 6-month follow up in patients treated with HDF versus HD. Physical activity is being measured over one week at study visits with the ActiGraph ( www.actigraphcorp.com ). For assessment of peridialytic differences during the dialysis recovery period, we will analyze granular physical activity levels based on the initiation time of HD on dialysis days, or concurrent times on non-dialysis days and the long interdialytic day. DISCUSSION: In this manuscript, we provide detailed information about the HDFIT study design and methodology. This trial will provide novel insights into peridialytic profiles of physical activity and various self-reported, clinical and laboratory outcomes in ESRD patients treated by high volume online HDF versus high-flux HD. Ultimately, this investigation will elucidate whether HDF is associated with patients having better vitality and quality of life, and less negative outcomes as compared to HD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 April 2016 ( NCT02787161 ).

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

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.

On-line hemodiafiltration did not induce an overproduction of oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokines in intensive care unit-acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Though on-line intermittent hemodiafiltration (OL-IHDF) is a routine therapy for chronic dialysis patients, it is not yet widespread used in critically ill patients. This study was undergone to evaluate efficiency and tolerance of OL-IHDF and to appreciate inflammatory consequences of its use in intensive care unit (ICU)-acute kidney injury (AKI) patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted in a medical academic ICU in France, 30 AKI patients who underwent OL-IHDF were included. OL-HDF used an ultrapure water production: AQ 1250 line with double reverse osmosis, a generator 5008 with a 1.8m2 dialyzer with Polysulfone membrane (Fresenius Medical Care). Tolerance and efficiency of OL-IHDF were evaluated as well as its inflammatory risk by the measurement of plasma concentrations of proinflammatory (Interleukin 6, IL1ß, IL8, Interferon γ) and anti-inflammatory (IL4, IL10) cytokines, Epidermal growth factor (EGF), Vascular Endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Macrophage Chemoattractive Protein-1 (MCP-1) before and after sessions. RESULTS: Intradialytic hypotensive events were observed during 27/203 OL-IHDF sessions accounting for a mal-tolerated session's rate at 13.3%. Mean delivered urea Kt/V per session was 1.12 ± 0.27 with a percentage of reduction for urea, creatinine, ß2-microglobulin and cystatine C at 61.6 ± 8.8%, 55.3 ± 6.7%, 51.5 ± 8.7% and 44.5 ± 9.8% respectively. Production of superoxide anion by leukocytes, mean levels of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and plasmatic concentrations of EGF, VEGF and MCP-1 did not differ before and after OL-IHDF sessions. We observed however a significant decrease of mean TNFα plasmatic concentrations from 8.2 ± 5.8 to 4.8 ± 3.5 pg/ml at the end of OL-IHDF. CONCLUSIONS: OL-IHDF was not associated with an increase in pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines, oxidative stress or EGF, VEGF and MCP-1 in AKI patients and seems therefore a secure and feasible modality in ICUs.

Caspofungin Population Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Continuous Veno-Venous Haemofiltration or Haemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sepsis and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) can both significantly affect antifungal pharmacokinetics. This study aimed to describe the pharmacokinetics of caspofungin in critically ill patients during different CRRT modes. METHODS: Patients receiving caspofungin and undergoing continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) or haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) were eligible to take part in the study. Blood samples were collected at seven sampling times during a dosing interval. Demographics and clinical data were recorded. Population pharmacokinetic analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation were undertaken using Pmetrics. RESULTS: Twelve pharmacokinetic profiles from nine patients were analysed. The caspofungin CRRT clearance (CL) was 0.048 ± 0.12 L/h for CVVH and 0.042 ± 0.042 L/h for CVVHDF. A two-compartment linear model best described the data. Patient weight was the only covariate affecting drug CL and central volume. The mean (standard deviation) parameter estimates were 0.64 ± 0.12 L/h for CL, 9.35 ± 3.56 L for central volume, 0.25 ± 0.19 per h for the rate constant for drug distribution from central to peripheral compartments and 0.19 ± 0.10 per h from peripheral to central compartments. Based on simulation results, a caspofungin 100 mg loading dose followed by a 50 mg maintenance dose for patients with a total body weight of ≤80 kg best achieved the pharmacokinetic/PD targets whilst a 70 mg maintenance dose was required for patients with a weight of >80 kg. CONCLUSION: No caspofungin dosing adjustment is necessary for patients undergoing either form of CRRT. However, higher than recommended loading doses of caspofungin are required to achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets in critically ill patients. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01403220.

Evolution of Technology for Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: Forty Years of Improvements.

Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration (CAVH) was proposed in 1977 as an alternative treatment for acute renal failure in patients in whom peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis was clinically or technically precluded. In the mid-1980s, this technique was extended to infants and children. CAVH presented important advantages in the areas of hemodynamic stability, control of circulating volume, and nutritional support. However, there were serious shortcomings such as the need for arterial cannulation and limited solute clearance. These problems were solved by the introduction of continuous arteriovenous hemodiafiltration (CAVHDF) and continuous arteriovenous hemodialysis (CAVHD) where uremic control could be by increasing countercurrent dialysate flow rates to 1.5 or 2 liters/h as necessary, or by venovenous techniques utilizing a double-lumen central venous catheter for vascular access. Thus, continuous venovenous hemofiltration replaced CAVH because of its improved performance and safety. From the initial adoptive technology, specific machines have been designed to permit safe and reliable performance of the therapy. These new machines have progressively undergone a series of technological steps that have resulted in the highly sophisticated equipment utilized today. A significant number of advances have taken place since the beginning of continuous renal replacement therapy. In particular, there have been successful experiments with high-volume hemofiltration and high-permeability hemofiltration. The additional and combined use of sorbent has also been tested successfully. Progress has been made in the technology as well as the understanding of the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury. Today, new biomaterials and new devices are available and new frontiers are on the horizon. Although improvements have been made, a lot remains to be done. Critical care nephrology is expected to further evolve in the near future, especially in the area of information and communication technology, utilization of big data and large database registries, biofeedback, and assisted prescription and treatment delivery, with high potential for improvement in morbidity and mortality of the most severely ill patients.

Peritoneal dialysis for the management of pediatric patients with acute kidney injury.

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is the most important supportive measure used in the management of acute kidney injury (AKI). Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a safe, simple and inexpensive procedure and has been used in pediatric AKI patients, ranging from neonates to adolescents. It is the modality of choice for RRT in developing countries with cost constraints and limited resources. However, its use has declined with the availability of newer types of extracorporeal modalities for RRT in the developed world. Much controversy exists regarding the dosing and adequacy of PD in the management of AKI. Data in infants and children have shown that PD can provide adequate clearance, ultrafiltration and correction of metabolic abnormalities even in those who are critically ill. Although there are no prospective studies in children, data from retrospective studies reveal no differences in mortality rates between different modalities of RRT. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of PD, indications for acute PD, strategies to improve the efficiency of acute PD and outcomes of PD in children with AKI.

Worsening renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure treated with ultrafiltration: predictors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration (UF) is used to treat patients with diuretic-resistant acute decompensated heart failure. The aim of this study was to identify predictors and the effect of worsening renal failure(WRF) on mortality in patients treated with UF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on changes in serum creatinine, 99 patients treated with UF were divided into WRF and control groups. Overall creatinine increased from 1.9 ± 0.7 to 1.2 ± 1.0 mg/dL (P!.001),and WRF developed in 41% of the subjects. The peak UF rate was higher in the WRF group in univariate analysis (174 ± 75 vs 144 ± 52 mL/h; P = .03). Based on multivariate analysis, aldosterone antagonist treatment (odds ratio [OR] 3.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-13.46, P = .04), heart rate ≤65 beats/min (OR 6.03, 95% CI 1.48-48.42; P = .03), and E/E0 ≥ 15 (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.26-17.55; P 5 .04) at hospital admission were associated with WRF. Patients with baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≤60mg/dL who developed WRF during UF had a 75% 1-year mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: WRF occurred frequently during UF. Increased LV filling pressures, lower heart rate, and treatment with aldosterone antagonist at hospital admission can identify patients at increased risk for WRF. Patients with baseline GFR ≤60 mg/dL and WRF during UF have an extremely high 1-year mortality rate.

Acute hemodynamic response and uremic toxin removal in conventional and extended hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive hemodialysis (HD) may have significant benefits. Recently, the role of extended hemodiafiltration (HDF) has gained interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute effects of extended HD and HDF on hemodynamic response and solute removal. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Stable patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing conventional HD. INTERVENTION: 13 patients randomly completed a single study of 4-hour HD (HD4), 4-hour HDF (HDF4), 8-hour HD (HD8), and 8-hour HDF (HDF8), with a 2-week interval between study sessions. Between study sessions, patients received routine conventional HD treatments. OUTCOMES: Acute hemodynamic effects and uremic toxin clearance. MEASUREMENTS: Blood pressure and heart rate, pulse wave analysis, cardiac output, and microvascular density by sublingual capillaroscopy, as well as relative blood volume and thermal variables, were measured. Clearance and removal of uremic toxins also were studied. RESULTS: Long treatments showed more stability of peripheral systolic blood pressure (change during HD4, -21.7±15.6 mm Hg; during HDF4, -23.3±20.8 mm Hg; during HD8, -6.7±15.2 mm Hg [P=0.04 vs. HD4; P=0.08 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±14.4 mm Hg [P=0.004 vs. HD4; P=0.008 vs. HDF4]). A similar observation was found for peripheral diastolic and central blood pressures. Cardiac output remained more stable in extended sessions (change during HD4, -1.4±1.5 L/min; during HDF4, -1.6±1.0 L/min; during HD8, -0.4±0.9 L/min [P=0.02 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±0.8 L/min [P=0.06 vs. HD4; P=0.03 vs. HDF4), in line with the decreased relative blood volume slope in long dialysis. No differences in microvascular density were found. Energy transfer rates were comparable (HD4, 13.3±4.7 W; HDF4, 16.2±5.6 W; HD8, 14.2±6.0 W; and HDF8, 14.5±4.3 W). Small-molecule and phosphate removal were superior during long treatments. ß2-Microglobulin and fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) reduction ratios were highest in HDF8. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, only acute effects were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment time, and not modality, was the determinant for the hemodynamic response. HDF significantly improved removal of middle molecules, with superior results in extended HDF.

Development of hemodiafiltration therapy--a historical perspective.

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) was created in the late 1970s to combine the best of hemodialysis (HD) and hemofiltration, i.e. superior removal of both small and large solutes. Thus, optimal conditions for both diffusion and convection are required. The need for large volumes of sterile fluid has shaped the evolution of HDF, and regulatory issues around systems for on-line fluid preparation have delayed the clinical development of the therapy. Not until such systems became generally available in the mid-1990 s was it possible to increase the efficiency of HDF therapy to match and exceed the upgrade that had taken place for HD. Results from recent studies indicate that the potential for improving the outcome of dialysis lies in increasing the convective clearance of HDF above that of high-flux HD.

The machine and the therapy concept.

Maintenance haemodialysis became established in mainstream clinical practice in the 1960s. For pragmatic reasons, diffusive dialysis was the technique which underpinned its success. Over the next 15 years it was shown that short- and medium-term survival depended only on a critical level of urea clearance being achieved. Uncomplicated technology with negligible capacity for middle molecule removal could deliver this and the case for developing more sophisticated machines able to broaden the spectrum of solute removal was unconvincing. Dialysis-related amyloidosis which was recognised in the mid-1980s as a devastating complication in long survivors disturbed this complacency. The journey to develop machines which could deliver broad-spectrum solute removal while exposing patients only to ultrapure fluids and biocompatible materials is described elsewhere in this text. The Lister Renal Unit was established in 1988. A fruitful collaboration between the multidisciplinary clinical team and engineering colleagues in the R&D Department of Fresenius contributed to a steady and in-depth understanding of the effect of superimposing convection on diffusive dialysis. From the outset only high-flux dialysis using ultrapure fluids was employed. Haemodiafiltration (HDF) was introduced in 1993. This paper summarises our observations regarding the relative contributions of natural renal function and convective blood purification to long-term outcomes. We have recently reported a 19-year experience which has allowed us to more clearly define the rationale for HDF in modern clinical practice. HDF is an engineering triumph which is likely to universally supersede diffusive dialysis. The challenge for clinicians moving forward is to learn in which treatment schedules this technology can best be deployed to improve the health prospects of patients with kidney failure.

The early years of on-line HDF: how did it all start? How did we get here?

In the mid-1980s, limits and side effects of contemporary hemodialysis were basically due to short treatment time, use of low-flux membranes and employment of acetate-buffered dialysate. These were already associated with a relatively high morbidity and cardiovascular mortality as part of diaysis-related pathology. Based on these considerations, the concept of on-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) was proposed as an innovative solution. By combining diffusive and convective clearances, HDF offered the most efficient modality to clear small and middle-sized uremic toxins. Furthermore, by using ultrapure dialysis fluid and high-flux synthetic membranes, HDF also offered the most biocompatible dialysis system, thereby going a long way towards preventing inflammation. Through provision of virtually unlimited amounts of sterile dialysis fluid by cold sterilization of fresh dialysate, on-line HDF offered an economical and viable method of conducting high-efficiency HDF (high volume exchange) therapy. By keeping the hemodialysis machine with all built-in technical options (e.g. adjustable blood pump, fluid-balancing system, conductivity meter, flow and pressure monitoring, bicarbonate-buffered dialysate), HDF benefited from being associated with the use of dialysis machines with excellent technology as well as highest safety standards. Use of ultrapure water made it then possible to produce dialysis fluid of intravenous grade quality with these machines. The first on-line HDF clinical trial was performed with a modified A2008C dialysis machine in 1984-85. This confirmed the feasibility and potential of the on-line HDF method. Some 25 years later, on-line HDF has proven to be safe, efficacious and with clinical benefits that justify it becoming a new standard for high-quality care of chronic kidney patients.

Hemodiafiltration - state of the art.

Many observational studies have consistently shown that high-flux hemodialysis (hf-HD) has positive effects on the survival and morbidity of chronic kidney disease stage 5 dialysis (CKD5D) patients when compared with low-flux hemodialysis, but the primary analysis of the prospective randomized Hemodialysis Outcomes (HEMO) study showed that the use of hf-HD was not associated with a significant reduction of the relative risk of mortality. More recently, the Membrane Permeability Outcome (MPO) study found that survival could be significantly improved by use hf-HD compared with low-flux dialysis in high-risk patients as identified by serum albumin ≤4 g/dl and, in a post-hoc analysis, in diabetic patients. Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is reported as the most efficient technique of using high-flux membranes. Clearances of small solutes like urea are higher than in hemofiltration and of middle solutes like ß(2)-microglobulin are higher than in hf-HD. As the number of randomized prospective trials comparing HDF and hf-HD is still very limited, no conclusive data are available concerning the effect of increased convection of online HDF on survival and morbidity in CKD5D patients. A large, randomized controlled study is needed to clinically confirm the theoretical advantages of online HDF.

Hemodiafiltration: Evolution of a technique towards better dialysis care.

Technological developments in the fields of membranes, machines and fluids have contributed to making hemodiafiltration (HDF) a safe and effective technique. Synthetic membranes with combined hydrophilic-hydrophobic structure and reduced wall thickness allowed to combine diffusion and convection into a unique technique. Accurate volumetric ultrafiltration control systems in dialysis machines reduce the risk for fluid balance errors and allow to perform safe and efficient online HDF. In fact, modern dialysis machines are equipped with specific balancing systems to manage fluid reinfusion and ultrafiltration simultaneously. Online preparation of sterile and pyrogen-free solutions for infusion is today possible, allowing the safe infusion of large fluid volumes during a HDF session. Dedicated software and enhanced user interfaces of modern dialysis machines simplify the procedures and reduce both operator workload and error. Emerging evidence suggests that these therapies may be superior to classic diffusive hemodialysis in terms of morbidity, and perhaps even mortality. There is a need for better understanding of the mechanisms involved, as well as further confirmation of these encouraging findings with prospective controlled trials. Nevertheless, HDF appears a promising therapy that likely will improve patient outcomes. Based on these considerations, HDF has the potential to become the new gold standard for dialysis in the years to come.

Optimizing home dialysis: role of hemodiafiltration.

Over the last 40 years the technical obstacles which prevented a convective contribution to diffusive dialysis have been overcome. Hemodiafiltration represents a natural evolution of intermittent extracorporeal blood purification and the technology is now available to offer this as standard treatment in-center. The first randomized control trial of dialysis dose (National Cooperative Dialysis Study) showed that for three times weekly dialysis a critical level of urea clearance was necessary to ensure complication-free survival, the effect being noticeable by 3 months. Following this, observational studies suggested that higher doses improved longer term outcome. In a second large randomized controlled study (HEMO), higher small molecule clearance did not further improve outcome, but high-flux membranes, which permitted enhanced clearance of middle molecules, appeared to confer survival benefit in patients who had already been on dialysis > 3.7 years. Recently, outcomes from the Membrane Permeability Outcome study confirmed a survival benefit of high-flux membranes in high-risk patients. These studies indicate that in the medium term survival is critically dependent on achieving a minimum level of small solute removal. However, longer term survival (measured in years or decades) not only requires better small solute clearance but also enhanced clearance of middle molecules, the toxicity of which manifest over longer time scales. The rationale for convective treatment is strongest, therefore in those patients who have the greatest potential for long-term survival. Patients who opt for self-care at home to allow frequent dialysis generally are constituents of this group. Hemodiafiltration is likely to become standard therapy in-center and in the home.

Hemodialysis: yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Hemodialysis was born in 1945 to treat acute renal failure, and it has progressively become a rescue therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5, otherwise doomed to death. During the years, technological innovations have led to improved dialytic tolerance, making possible to extend the treatment to a greater number of subjects. Low- and high-flux bicarbonate dialysis are nowadays the most frequent hemodialysis techniques; hemodiafiltration with different modalities, short daily and overnight hemo-dialysis are also widespread, each of them with peculiar characteristics. A recent randomized controlled clinical trial has identified high-flux hemodialysis as the best treatment for patients with low serum levels of albumin and for diabetics in comparison to low flux dialysis. Apart from the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), hemodialysis has new and important applications, including heart failure treatment and multiple myeloma. The need to provide hemodialysis patients a better quality of life has increased the interest in developing new techniques, such as the wearable artificial kidney, although still in initial clinical development. During the last 60 years, we have seen an exciting evolution in the field of hemodialysis, which has led to important changes in the outcome of ESRD patients. The preclinical and clinical hard work ongoing in earlier stages of CKD should be able to obtain further relevant improvements and maybe avoid the need of hemodialysis itself.

Sorbent augmented hemodialysis systems: are we there yet?

Recent publications have reintroduced the concept of using sorbent systems to augment the efficiency of the dialysis process, either by making stationary or compact wearable devices to regenerate dialysis fluid or to target larger molecules for removal by direct blood or plasma contact with sorbent particles. Many of the inherent problems associated with older sorbents have been overcome by designing sorbents with improved biocompatibility and potential for removing molecules beyond the limits of conventional dialysis membranes. One system is approved for use in acute renal failure in the United States, but other devices are not approved for use in humans and continue to be tested in animals and humans. A prototype wearable sorbent device under investigation is not yet able to meet acceptable small molecular weight solute removal, and the other sorbent devices that possess the ability to remove unconventional uremic toxins have not been studied sufficiently in dialysis patients to define their role as augmentation devices. That there is a renewal of interest in sorbents in augmentation of dialysis points to the dissatisfaction with current dialysis technology.