Effect of Hemodiafiltration or Hemodialysis on Mortality in Kidney Failure.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that patients with kidney failure may benefit from high-dose hemodiafiltration as compared with standard hemodialysis. However, given the limitations of the various published studies, additional data are needed. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure who had received high-flux hemodialysis for at least 3 months. All the patients were deemed to be candidates for a convection volume of at least 23 liters per session (as required for high-dose hemodiafiltration) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments. The patients were assigned to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration or continuation of conventional high-flux hemodialysis. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific death, a composite of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events, kidney transplantation, and recurrent all-cause or infection-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 1360 patients underwent randomization: 683 to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration and 677 to receive high-flux hemodialysis. The median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 27 to 38). The mean convection volume during the trial in the hemodiafiltration group was 25.3 liters per session. Death from any cause occurred in 118 patients (17.3%) in the hemodiafiltration group and in 148 patients (21.9%) in the hemodialysis group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with kidney failure resulting in kidney-replacement therapy, the use of high-dose hemodiafiltration resulted in a lower risk of death from any cause than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. (Funded by the European Commission Research and Innovation; CONVINCE Dutch Trial Register number, NTR7138.).

The CONVINCE randomized trial found positive effects on quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease treated with hemodiafiltration.

In the CONVINCE trial, the primary analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for patients receiving high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) as compared with high-flux hemodialysis (HD). A secondary objective was to evaluate effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); assessed in eight domains (physical function, cognitive function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain interference, social participation) applying instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) before randomization and every three months thereafter. In total 1360 adults with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, eligible to receive high-flux HDF (23 liters or more), were randomized (1:1); 84% response rate to all questionnaires. Both groups reported a continuous deterioration in all HRQoL domains. Overall, raw score changes from baseline were more favorable in the HDF group, resulting in a significant omnibus test after a median observation period of 30 months. Most relevant single raw score differences were reported for cognitive function. Patients receiving HDF reported a decline of -0.95 units (95% confidence interval - 2.23 to +0.34) whereas HD treated patients declined by -3.90 units (-5.28 to - 2.52). A joint model, adjusted for mortality differences, utilizing all quarterly assessments, identified a significantly slower HRQoL decline in physical function, cognitive function, pain interference, and social participation for the HDF group. Their physical health summary score declined -0.46 units/year slower compared to the HD group. Thus, the CONVINCE trial showed a beneficial effect of high-dose hemodiafiltration for survival as well as a moderate positive effect on patients' quality of life, most pronounced with respect to their cognitive function. REGISTRATION: NTR7138 on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Using a measurement type-independent metric to compare patterns of determinants between patient-reported versus performance-based physical function in hemodialysis patients.

PURPOSE: We applied a previously established common T-score metric for patient-reported and performance-based physical function (PF), offering the unique opportunity to directly compare measurement type-specific patterns of associations with potential laboratory-based, psychosocial, sociodemographic, and health-related determinants in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from the CONVINCE trial (N = 1,360), a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing high-flux hemodialysis with high-dose hemodiafiltration. To explore the associations of potential determinants with performance-based versus patient-reported PF, we conducted multiple linear regression (backward elimination with cross-validation and Lasso regression). We used standardized T-scores as estimated from the PROMIS PF short-form 4a (patient-reported PF) and the Physical Performance Test (performance-based PF) as dependent variables. RESULTS: Performance-based and patient-reported PF were both significantly associated with a laboratory marker-based indicator of muscle mass (simplified creatinine index), although the effects were relatively small (partial f2 = 0.04). Age was negatively associated with PF; the effect size was larger for performance-based (partial f2 = 0.12) than for patient-reported PF (partial f2 = 0.08). Compared to performance-based PF, patient-reported PF showed a stronger association with self-reported health domains, particularly pain interference and fatigue. When using the individual difference between patient-reported and performance-based T-scores as outcome, we found that younger age and more fatigue were associated with lower patient-reported PF compared to performance-based PF (small effect size). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported and performance-based assessments were similarly associated with an objective marker of physical impairment in hemodialysis patients. Age and fatigue may result in discrepancies when comparing performance-based and patient-reported scores on the common PF scale. Trial Registration CONVINCE is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Register ID: NL64750.041.18). The registration can be accessed at: https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/52958 .

Long-term peridialytic blood pressure changes are related to mortality.

BACKGROUND: In chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients, the relationship between long-term peridialytic blood pressure (BP) changes and mortality has not been investigated. METHODS: To evaluate whether long-term changes in peridialytic BP are related to mortality and whether treatment with HD or haemodiafiltration (HDF) differs in this respect, the combined individual participant data of three randomized controlled trials comparing HD with HDF were used. Time-varying Cox regression and joint models were applied. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 2.94 years, 609 of 2011 patients died. As for pre-dialytic systolic BP (pre-SBP), a severe decline (≥21 mmHg) in the preceding 6 months was independently related to increased mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.61, P = .01] when compared with a moderate increase. Likewise, a severe decline in post-dialytic diastolic BP (DBP) was associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.96, P < .0005). In contrast, joint models showed that every 5-mmHg increase in pre-SBP and post-DBP during total follow-up was related to reduced mortality (adjusted HR 0.97, P = .01 and 0.94, P = .03, respectively). No interaction was observed between BP changes and treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Severe declines in pre-SBP and post-DBP in the preceding 6 months were independently related to mortality. Therefore peridialytic BP values should be interpreted in the context of their changes and not solely as an absolute value.

Proposal for a New Classification of Solutes of Interest in Uremia and Hemodialysis.

Uremic toxins contribute to clinical manifestations of kidney dysfunction. These toxins include organic and inorganic elements or compounds. While the kidney typically clears uremic toxins, gut dysbiosis, and tissue inflammation could lead to increased production of substances that can further the clinical manifestations of uremia. The uremic toxins are quantitatively measurable in biological fluids and have an established relationship with azotemia signs and symptoms. Their elimination is associated with mitigated uremic manifestations, while their administration to the uremic levels leads to uremic signs in animal or human models or in vitro studies. Besides, the uremic toxins have an established and plausible pathophysiologic relationship with uremic manifestations. The previous classification of uremic toxins was mainly focused on the physicochemical characteristics of these substances to divide them into three categories, (1) free water-soluble low-molecular-weight (<500 Da) solutes, (2) protein-bound, water-soluble, low molecular weight (<500 Da), (3) middle molecular weight (>500 Da and <12,000 Da), and (4) high molecular weight (>12,000 Da). Unfortunately, the classification named above was not centered around patient outcomes and quality of life among those with severe kidney failure. Therefore, a panel of experts convened virtually to provide additional insights into the current state and propose a new uremic toxin classification. This article describes the group's consensus recommendations regarding the new classification of uremic toxins into more clinically oriented categories.

CONVINCE in the context of existing evidence on haemodiafiltration.

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a greater removal of larger solutes and protein-bound compounds than conventional high-flux haemodialysis (HD). There are indications that the patients receiving the highest convection volumes of HDF result in improved survival compared with HD. However, the comparative efficacy of HDF versus HD remains unproven. Here we provide a comparative account of the methodology and aims of 'the comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD' (CONVINCE) study in the context of the totality of evidence and how this study will contribute to reaching a higher level of certainty regarding the comparative efficacy of HDF versus HD in people with end-stage kidney disease.

Why and how high volume hemodiafiltration may reduce cardiovascular mortality in stage 5 chronic kidney disease dialysis patients? A comprehensive literature review on mechanisms involved.

Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is an established renal replacement modality for patients with end stage chronic kidney disease that is now gaining rapid clinical acceptance worldwide. Currently, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that treatment with HDF is associated with better outcomes and reduced cardiovascular mortality for dialysis patients. In this comprehensive review, we provide an update on the potential mechanisms which may improve survival in HDF treated patients. The strongest evidence is for better hemodynamic stability and reduced endothelial dysfunction associated with HDF treatments. Clinically, this is marked by a reduced incidence of intradialytic hypotensive episodes, with a better hemodynamic response to ultrafiltration, mediated by an increase in total peripheral vascular resistance and extra-vascular fluid recruitment, most likely driven by the negative thermal balance associated with online HDF therapy. In addition, endothelial function appears to be improved due to a combination of a reduction of the inflammatory and oxidative stress complex syndrome and exposure to circulating cardiovascular uremic toxins. Reports of reversed cardiovascular remodeling effects with HDF may be confounded by volume and blood pressure management, which are strongly linked to center clinical practices. Currently, treatment with HDF appears to improve the survival of dialysis patients predominantly due to a reduction in their cardiovascular burden, and this reduction is linked to the sessional convection volume exchanged.

Catheter-based alcohol-mediated renal denervation for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension: design of two sham-controlled, randomized, blinded trials in the absence (TARGET BP OFF-MED) and presence (TARGET BP I) of antihypertensive medications.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension is a common and life-threatening condition and poses a large global health burden. Device-based treatments have been developed as adjunctive or alternative therapy, to be used with or without antihypertensive medication for treating uncontrolled hypertension. The safety and feasibility of chemical renal denervation (RDN) using the Peregrine Catheter and alcohol were demonstrated in a first-in-man and open-label clinical trials, prompting the initiation of the ongoing TARGET BP OFF-MED and TARGET BP I trials. DESIGN: The TARGET BP trials are randomized, blinded, sham-controlled trials designed to assess the safety and efficacy of alcohol-mediated RDN for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications (TARGET BP OFF-MED) or in addition to prescribed antihypertensive medications (TARGET BP I). Subjects with confirmed uncontrolled hypertension and suitable renal artery anatomy are randomized (1:1) to receive either RDN using the Peregrine Kit with alcohol (0.6 mL per renal artery) infused through the Peregrine Catheter or diagnostic renal angiography only (sham procedure). TARGET BP OFF-MED completed enrollment and randomized 96 subjects. TARGET BP I will randomize approximately 300 subjects and will transition to an open-label safety cohort of approximately 300 subjects receiving RDN once the primary efficacy endpoint of the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) cohort has been met. Primary endpoints are change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to 8 weeks (TARGET BP OFF-MED) and 3 months (TARGET BP I) post-procedure. CONCLUSION: The TARGET BP trials are the first large-scale, international, randomized trials aimed to investigate the safety and BP lowering efficacy of a novel RDN method, with perivascular alcohol delivery using the Peregrine Kit.

Multiparametric Renal MRI: An Intrasubject Test-Retest Repeatability Study.

BACKGROUND: Renal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring in kidney disease. PURPOSE: To determine intrasubject test-retest repeatability of renal MRI measurements. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Nineteen healthy subjects aged over 40 years. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: T1 and T2 mapping, R2 * mapping or blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) MRI, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), 2D phase contrast, arterial spin labelling (ASL), dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI, and quantitative Dixon for fat quantification at 3T. ASSESSMENT: Subjects were scanned twice with ~1 week between visits. Total scan time was ~1 hour. Postprocessing included motion correction, semiautomated segmentation of cortex and medulla, and fitting of the appropriate signal model. STATISTICAL TEST: To assess the repeatability, a Bland-Altman analysis was performed and coefficients of variation (CoVs), repeatability coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: CoVs for relaxometry (T1 , T2 , R2 */BOLD) were below 6.1%, with the lowest CoVs for T2 maps and highest for R2 */BOLD. CoVs for all diffusion analyses were below 7.2%, except for perfusion fraction (FP ), with CoVs ranging from 18-24%. The CoV for renal sinus fat volume and percentage were both around 9%. Perfusion measurements were most repeatable with ASL (cortical perfusion only) and 2D phase contrast with CoVs of 10% and 13%, respectively. DCE perfusion had a CoV of 16%, while single kidney glomerular filtration rate (GFR) had a CoV of 13%. Repeatability coefficients (RCs) ranged from 7.7-87% (lowest/highest values for medullary mean diffusivity and cortical FP , respectively) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from -0.01 to 0.98 (lowest/highest values for cortical FP and renal sinus fat volume, respectively). DATA CONCLUSION: CoVs of most MRI measures of renal function and structure (with the exception of FP and perfusion as measured by DCE) were below 13%, which is comparable to standard clinical tests in nephrology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.