Prevalence of Protein-Energy Wasting in Dialysis Patients Using a Practical Online Tool to Compare with Other Nutritional Scores: Results of the Nutrendial Study.

This cross-sectional study aims to explore the prevalence of protein-energy wasting (PEW) in dialysis patients in Catalonia, Spain, using a new and practical online tool which enables rapid calculation and comparison with other nutritional scores. METHODS: A web tool (Nutrendial) was created to introduce different variables and automatically calculate PEW, Malnutrition inflammation Score (MIS) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in 1389 patients (88% in haemodialysis (HD)), 12% in peritoneal dialysis (PD) from different regions of Catalonia. RESULTS: A prevalence of 23.3% (26% HD, 10.2% PD) of PEW was found, with a mean MIS score of 6 and SGA score of C in 7% of the patients. ROC analysis showed MIS as the best nutritional score to diagnose PEW (AUC 0.85). Albumin delivered lower diagnostic precision (AUC 0.77) and sensitivity (66%). A cut off point of 7 (86% sensitivity and 75% specificity) for MIS and 3.7 mg/dL for albumin were found to predict the appearance of PEW in this population. SGA B or C showed an 87% sensitivity and 55% specificity to diagnose PEW. Very low nutritional intervention (14%) was recorded with this tool in patients with PEW. CONCLUSIONS: This new online tool facilitated the calculation of PEW, enabling different professionals-including nephrologists, dieticians and nurses-to efficiently obtain insights into the nutritional status of the Catalonian dialysis population and implement the required nutritional interventions. MIS is the score with more sensitivity to diagnose PEW.

Efficacy and safety of the Clearum dialyzer.

The Clearum dialyzer, built by Medtronic, became commercially available in several European countries in 2020, but there are still no reports of in vivo data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and risk of hypoalbuminemia of this dialyzer compared with previously evaluated hemodialysis (HD), expanded hemodialysis (HDx), and postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments. A prospective study was carried out in 15 patients. Each patient underwent seven dialysis sessions: FX80 Cordiax in HD, Clearum HS17 in HD, Phylther 17-SD in HDx, Theranova 400 in HDx, Phylther 17-G in postdilution HDF, Clearum HS17 in postdilution HDF, and FX80 Cordiax in postdilution HDF. The reduction ratios of urea, creatinine, ß2 -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1 -microglobulin, α1 -acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured. Comparison of dialysis techniques revealed no differences between small molecules, but HDx and HDF were significantly higher than HD with medium and large molecular weights. The Clearum dialyzer in HDF obtained similar results to FX80 Cordiax in HDF, was slightly superior to Phylther 17-G in HDF, and was statistically superior to both dialyzers in HDx. Albumin losses with the Clearum dialyzer were among the lowest, both in HD and HDF treatments. The highest global removal score (GRS) values were obtained with the helixone and Clearum dialyzers in HDF, with similar results both in HD and HDF. In addition, the GRS values with HDx treatments were statistically significantly higher than those with HD. The new Clearum dialyzer has excellent behavior and tolerance in HD and HDF. Its adequate permeability has been proven with its maximal performance in HDF, which could represent an upgrade versus its predecessor polyphenylene dialyzers.

Determining factors for hemodiafiltration to equal or exceed the performance of expanded hemodialysis.

The aim of the study was to compare expanded hemodialysis (HDx) with hemodiafiltration (HDF) at different infusion flows to identify the main determinants, namely blood flow (Qb), replacement volume, infusion flow (Qi), ultrafiltration flow (Quf ), filtration fraction (FF), and the point at which the effectiveness of HDF equals or exceeds that of HDx. We conducted a prospective, single-center study in 12 patients. Each patient underwent 12 dialysis sessions: six sessions with Qb 350 and six with Qb 400 mL/min; with each Qb, one session was with HDx and five sessions were with FX80 (one in HD, and four with Qi 50, 75, 90/100 mL/min or autosubstitution in postdilution HDF). The reduction ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2 -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1 -microglobulin, α1 -acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually and the global removal score (GRS) was calculated. The mean replacement volume with Qb 350 mL/min was 13.77 ± 0.92 L with Qi 50 mL/min, 20.75 ± 1.17 L with Qi 75, 23.83 ± 1.92 L with Qi 90, and 27.51 ± 2.77 L with autosubstitution. Similar results were obtained with Qb 400 mL/min, and the results were only slightly higher with Qi 100 mL/min or in autosubstitution. The GRS was positively correlated with replacement volume with Qb 350 (R2  = 0.583) and with Qb 400 (R2  = 0.584); with Quf with Qb 350 (R2  = 0.556) and with Qb 400 (R2  = 0.604); and also with FF with Qb 350 (R2  = 0.556) and with Qb 400 mL/min (R2  = 0.603). The minimum convective volume in HDF from which it is possible to overcome the efficacy of HDx was 19.2 L with Qb 350 and 17.6 L with Qb 400 mL/min. The cut-off point of Quf at which HDF exceeded the effectiveness of HDx was 80.6 mL/min with Qb 350 and 74.1 mL/min with Qb 400 mL/min. The cut-off point at which FF in HDF exceeded the effectiveness of the HDx was 23.0% with Qb 350 and 18.6% with Qb 400 mL/min. In conclusion, this study confirms the superiority of postdilution HDF over HDx when replacement volume, convective volume, Quf , or FF exceeds certain values. Increasing the Qb in postdilution HDF manages to increase the convective dose and more easily overcome the HDx.

Study of Biocompatibility of Membranes in Online Hemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND: The biocompatibility of dialysis membranes is a determining factor in avoiding chronic microinflammation in patients under haemodialysis. Lower biocompatibility has been related to increased inflammatory status, which is known to be associated with cardiovascular events. Classically, cellulose membranes have been considered bioincompatible. A new-generation of asymmetric cellulose triacetate (CTA) membranes allows the performance of high convective transport techniques, but there have been no studies of their biocompatibility. The aim of the present study was to analyze and compare the biocompatibility characteristics of 4 membranes, including CTA, in online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) patients. METHODS: We included 15 patients in -OL-HDF. After a 2-week washout period with helixone membrane, each patient was treated with the 4 membranes (polyamide, polynephron, helixone and CTA) for 4 weeks in a randomized order. The other dialysis parameters were kept stable throughout the study. We studied changes in markers of the activation of the complement system, monocytes, platelets, and adhesion molecules with the 4 membranes, as well as inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Biocompatibility was similar among the membranes. There were no sustained differences in complement activation, measured by C3a and C5a levels, or in platelet activation, determined by levels of P-selectin and platelet-derived microparticles (CD41a+). No differences were observed in activated monocyte levels (CD14+/CD16+) or in plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-10 or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, although tumour necrosis factor-α levels decreased when the patients were dialyzed with CTA. No significant differences were found in markers of endothelial damage, assessed by levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and adhesion molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1). CONCLUSION: The 4 membranes evaluated in this study in stable patients on OL-HDF, including the new-generation CTA, show similar biocompatibility with the methods applied.

High-permeability alternatives to current dialyzers performing both high-flux hemodialysis and postdilution online hemodiafiltration.

Most high-flux dialyzers can be used in both hemodialysis (HD) and online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF). However, some of these dialyzers have higher permeability and should not be prescribed for OL-HDF to avoid high albumin losses. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a currently used dialyzer in HD and OL-HDF with those of several other high permeability dialyzers which should only be used in HD. A prospective, single-center study was carried out in 21 patients. Each patient underwent 5 dialysis sessions with routine dialysis parameters: 2 sessions with Helixone (HD and postdilution OL-HDF) and 1 session each with steam sterilized polyphenylene, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and medium cut-off (MCO) dialyzers in HD treatment. The removal ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2 -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1 -microglobulin, α1 -acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. A proportional part of the dialysate was collected to quantify the loss of various solutes, including albumin. Urea and creatinine RRs with the Helixone-HDF and MCO dialyzers were higher than with the other 3 dialyzers in HD. The ß2 -microglobulin, myoglobin and prolactin RRs with Helixone-HDF treatment were significantly higher than those obtained with all 4 dialyzers in HD treatment. The ß2 -microglobulin value obtained with the MCO dialyzer was also higher than that obtained with the other 3 dialyzers in HD treatment. The myoglobin RR with MCO was higher than those obtained with Helixone and PMMA in HD treatment. The prolactin RR with Helixone-HD was significantly lower than those obtained in the other 4 study sessions. The α1 -microglobulin and α1 - acid glycoprotein RRs with Helixone-HDF were significantly higher than those obtained with Helixone and PMMA in HD treatment. The albumin loss varied from 0.54 g with Helixone-HD to 3.3 g with polyphenylene. The global removal score values ((UreaRR + ß2 -microglobulinRR + myoglobinRR + prolactinRR + α1 -microglobulinRR + α1 -acid glycoproteinRR - albuminRR )/6) were 43.7% with Helixone-HD, 47.7% with PMMA, 54% with polyphenylene, 54.8% with MCO and 59.6% with Helixone-HDF, with significant differences. In conclusion, this study confirms the superiority of OL-HDF over HD with the high-flux dialyzers that allow both treatments. Although new dialyzers with high permeability can only be used in HD, they are in an intermediate position and some are very close to OL-HDF.

Improved Control of Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in Hemodialysis Patients Switching from Oral Cinacalcet to Intravenous Etelcalcetide, Especially in Nonadherent Patients.

BACKGROUND: Etelcalcetide is a novel second-generation calcimimetic that, because of its intravenous administration, could improve treatment adherence in secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of etelcalcetide compared with that of cinacalcet in controlling SHPT in patients under hemodialysis. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in 29 patients with SHPT under hemodialysis who switched from cinacalcet to etelcalcetide with a follow-up of 6 months. A survey was conducted of adherence to the oral calcimimetic. The primary end-point of the study was to assess whether etelcalcetide was more effective than cinacalcet in controlling SHPT. RESULTS: After the switch of treatment, none of the patients developed clinical intolerance or new adverse effects. Etelcalcetide was more effective than cinacalcet in controlling intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH), with an overall decrease in iPTH levels that was significant from the second month. Average calcium levels remained within the normal range, with a higher percentage of hypocalcemia with etelcalcetide (6.9 vs. 13.8%), which was asymptomatic in all cases. Patients who were nonadherent to cinacalcet (38%) showed a significant reduction in calcium and iPTH during follow-up with etelcalcetide. The adherent group (62%) also showed a trend to lower iPTH levels reaching statistical significance after 5 months of follow-up. The dose conversion factor for the switch from cinacalcet to etelcalcetide was etelcalcetide/session = 0.111*mg cinacalcet/day + 0.96, R2 = 0.57. CONCLUSIONS: Etelcalcetide was more effective than cinacalcet in this patient population, especially in the nonadherent subgroup, leading to better SHPT control without adverse effects.