Basic physics of hemodiafiltration.

Standard high-flux hemodialysis (HD) clears urea very efficiently but is less efficient at clearing uremic toxins with larger molecule size, which diffuse more slowly. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides much higher convection rates, thereby reliably increasing the clearance of these larger toxins. However, the high ultrafiltration volumes employed by HDF significantly increase the concentration of proteins and lipids in the dialyzer blood compartment. This has the effect of increasing plasma viscosity, which opposes solute diffusion, and increasing plasma oncotic pressure, which opposes convection. The negatively charged plasma proteins also influence the equilibration of ions between dialysate and blood compartments. These effects result in varying conditions for solute transport along the length of the dialyzer and along the radial distance from the membrane within the dialyzer fibers. High-flux dialyzers can be designed to augment solute diffusion and internal filtration, so that their performance approaches that of HDF. This avoids some of the mechanical complexity of HDF, but such enhanced dialyzers may be more difficult to manufacture, control and monitor. Here, we present and discuss the most important physical phenomena associated with HDF therapy, providing an overview of its main concepts and principles. In particular, we discuss the physics of solute diffusion and convection and the factors affecting them, and we compare predilution or postdilution HDF with enhanced HD.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis.

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.

Residual renal function in incremental dialysis.

Incremental haemodialysis has the potential to allow better preservation of renal function, is less invasive to the patient and has lower cost. Despite these advantages, it is not commonly applied. This may be due to uncertainty about how to account for renal function in the prescription of dialysis and measurement of dose. In this issue, Vartia describes the practical basis for including the effect of renal function in the prescription and quantification of dialysis. He uses a well-known and validated urea kinetic model to calculate time average urea concentrations and the equivalent renal clearance (EKR) from dialysis. The effect of renal function is amplified by a weighting factor to account for the relatively greater effect of renal function compared with dialysis with the same urea clearance. In that way, patients on differing dialysis regimens can be dialysed with the same target dose. A further step would be to use a downward adjusting factor for dialysis to convert the urea clearance by dialysis (as EKR) to a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equivalent. A factor of 0.75 is suggested. In that way, dialysis dose can be reported as GFR equivalent in mL/min/1.73 m2, comparable between different types of dialysis and also to renal function without dialysis.

Is Kt/V useful in elderly dialysis patients? Pro and Con arguments.

Current guidelines for dialysis specify a minimum Kt/V. For haemodialysis (HD) patients, minimum treatment time and frequency is also specified. The guidelines allow for modification to take account of renal function. The guidelines are not specifically aimed at the elderly and may not be appropriate for all patients in this group. Increasing age is accompanied by physiological and pathological changes that may modify the patient's response to uraemia and dialysis. Frailty and multi-morbidity are likely, but to a variable extent. Elderly patients could be more susceptible to the effects of uraemia and require a higher dose of dialysis. Conversely, the generation rate of uraemic toxins is lower in elderly patients, potentially reducing the need for dialysis. In the elderly, quality of life may be more adversely affected by multimorbidity than uraemic symptoms, thus the dose of dialysis may be less relevant. Higher doses of dialysis may be more difficult to achieve in the elderly and may be less well tolerated. We conclude that the prescription of dialysis in the elderly should be individualized, taking multiple factors into account. An individualized Kt/V may be useful in controlling dialysis dose and detecting problems in delivery. However, achievement of a specified Kt/V may not result in any benefit to an elderly patient and could be counterproductive.

Clinical Practice Guideline on management of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b or higher (eGFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2): a summary document from the European Renal Best Practice Group.

The population of patients with moderate and severe CKD is growing. Frail and older patients comprise an increasing proportion. Many studies still exclude this group, so the evidence base is limited. In 2013 the advisory board of ERBP initiated, in collaboration with European Union of Geriatric Medicine Societies (EUGMS), the development of a guideline on the management of older patients with CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR >45 mL/min/1.73 m2). The full guideline has recently been published and is freely available online and on the website of ERBP (www.european-renal-best-practice.org). This paper summarises main recommendations of the guideline and their underlying rationales.

Hemodialysis Time and Kt/V: Less May Be Better.

Current guidelines focus on conventional dialysis defined as 3-5 hours, three times per week, and suggest that longer or more frequent dialysis be considered. This paper presents the case for considering that shorter or less frequent dialysis should also be considered. More frequent and/or longer dialysis facilitates control of fluid overload, blood pressure, and phosphate levels. These benefits will require time to translate into probable hard outcome improvement. Patients are unlikely to participate in productive or pleasurable activities while undergoing dialysis in center or traveling to treatment. So any increase in dialysis time or frequency, during awake hours, will result in an immediate and quantifiable reduction in quality of life. Conventional measures of dialysis adequacy consider only urea clearance. This poorly reflects middle molecule clearance, renal function, and management of fluid and phosphate overload, all of which have a greater impact on outcome than urea clearance. Fluid, phosphate, and uremic toxin overload may be better and less invasively controlled by continuous means such as dietary modification, binders, and preserving renal function. Bioimpedance, blood volume monitoring, and lung ultrasound provide means for improved control of fluid homeostasis. The probability of renal function recovery or preservation is increased by avoiding dehydration. An ideal strategy would be to preserve renal function and employ as little dialysis as possible (if it cannot be avoided altogether). Fluid overload, blood pressure, uremic toxin, and phosphate levels would be monitored and controlled using any means available, preferably by less invasive means than dialysis. Kt/V is useful in controlling the prescribed dose of dialysis, but the achievement of a universal target should not be an end in itself.

Uraemic toxins and new methods to control their accumulation: game changers for the concept of dialysis adequacy.

The current concept of an adequate dialysis based only on the dialysis process itself is rather limited. We now have considerable knowledge of uraemic toxicity and improved tools for limiting uraemic toxin accumulation. It is time to make use of these. A broader concept of adequacy that focusses on uraemic toxicity is required. As discussed in the present review, adequacy could be achieved by many different methods in combination with, or instead of, dialysis. These include preservation of renal function, dietary intake, reducing uraemic toxin generation rate and intestinal absorption, isolated ultrafiltration and extracorporeal adsorption of key uraemic toxins. A better measure of the quality of dialysis treatment would quantify the uraemic state in the patient using levels of a panel of key uraemic toxins. Treatment would focus on controlling uraemic toxicity while reducing harm or inconvenience to the patient. Delivering more dialysis might not be the best way to achieve this.

Knowing what we do and doing what we should: quality assurance in hemodialysis.

An international group of around 50 nephrologists and scientists, including representatives from large dialysis provider organisations, formulated recommendations on how to develop and implement quality assurance measures to improve individual hemodialysis patient care, population health and cost effectiveness. Discussed were methods thought to be of highest priority, those clinical indicators which might be most related to meaningful patient outcomes, tools to control treatment delivery and the role of facilitating computerized expert systems. Emphasis was given to the use of new technologies such as measurement of online dialysance and ways of assessing fluid status. The current evidence linking achievement of quality criteria with patient outcomes was reviewed. This paper summarizes useful processes and quality measures supporting quality assurance that have been agreed across the expert panel. It also notes areas where more understanding is required.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the erythropoiesis stimulating agent sparing potential of a vitamin E-bonded polysulfone dialysis membrane.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin E (VE) bonded polysulfone dialysis membranes have putative erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA)-sparing and anti-inflammatory properties based on data from a small number of studies. We sought to investigate this in a large, prospective 12-month randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixty prevalent haemodialysis (HD) patients were randomized to dialysis with VE-bonded polysulfone membranes or non-VE-bonded equivalents. All ESA-dosing was performed by means of a computer-based anaemia management decision support system. Monthly data were used to calculate the ESA resistance index (ERI) and blood tests were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months for measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. RESULTS: Of the 260 patients, 123 were randomized to dialysis with the VE-membrane and 12-month data was available for 220 patients. At the study population level, no beneficial effect of the VE membranes on the ERI or CRP levels was observed. Post hoc analyses indicated that there was a significant fall in ERI for patients with the highest baseline ESA resistance dialysed with the VE (9.28 [7.70-12.5] versus 7.70 [5.34-12.7] IU/week/kg/g/dL Hb, P = 0.01) but not the control membranes (9.45 [7.62-12.3] versus 8.14 [4.44-15.6] IU/week/kg/g/dL Hb, P = 0.41); this was not attributable to changes in CRP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Wholesale switching of all chronic HD patients to dialysis with VE-bonded polysulfone membranes appears not to be associated with improvements in ESA-responsiveness or CRP. These membranes may have utility in patients with heightened ESA resistance.

A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Acute Kidney Injury: part 2: renal replacement therapy.

This paper provides an endorsement of the KDIGO guideline on acute kidney injury; more specifically, on the part that concerns renal replacement therapy. New evidence that has emerged since the publication of the KDIGO guideline was taken into account, and the guideline is commented on from a European perspective. Advice is given on when to start and stop renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury; which modalities should be preferentially be applied, and in which conditions; how to gain access to circulation; how to measure adequacy; and which dose can be recommended.

Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited.

The general objective assigned to the EUropean DIALlysis (EUDIAL) Working Group by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) was to enhance the quality of dialysis therapies in Europe in the broadest possible sense. Given the increasing interest in convective therapies, the Working Group has started by focusing on haemodiafiltration (HDF) therapies. Several reports suggest that those therapies potentially improve the outcomes for end-stage renal disease patients. Europe is the leader in the field, having introduced the concept of ultra-purity for water and dialysis fluids and with notified bodies of the European Community having certified water treatment systems and online HDF machines. The prevalence of online HDF-treated patients is steadily increasing in Europe, averaging 15%. A EUDIAL consensus conference was held in Paris on 13 October 2011 to revisit terminology, safety and efficacy of online HDF. This is the first report of the expert group arising from that conference.

A predictive algorithm for the management of anaemia in haemodialysis patients based on ESA pharmacodynamics: better results for less work.

BACKGROUND: Many anaemia management algorithms recommend changes to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) doses based on frequent measurement of haemoglobin levels in keeping with the ESA datasheets. We designed a predictive anaemia algorithm based on ESA pharmacodynamics, which we hoped would improve compliance with haemoglobin targets and reduce workload. METHODS: A new algorithm was designed which predicted the 3-month steady-state haemoglobin concentration following a change in ESA dose and only recommended a change if it was outside the range 10.5-12.5 g/dL. Data were collected prospectively for 3 months prior and 15 months subsequent to implementing the algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 214 prevalent dialysis patients were included in the audit. After 12 months, the haemoglobin concentration was 11.4 g/dL, near the midpoint of the target range, with a narrowing of the distribution (SD 1.46 to 1.25 g/dL, P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with a haemoglobin level in the target range increased from 56% to 66% (P < 0.001) principally due to a reduction in the number of patients with high haemoglobin levels. There was no significant change in the ESA dose over the audit period. The number of prescription changes fell from 1/2.5 months to 1/6.1 months after 12 months (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Switching prevalent haemodialysis patients to a predictive anaemia management algorithm improved compliance with haemoglobin targets, reduced the number of patients with high haemoglobin levels and reduced the number of ESA dose changes required.

Automated monitoring of hemodialysis adequacy by dialysis machines: potential benefits to patients and cost savings.

Hemodialysis adequacy can be quantified using ultraviolet absorbance of the spent dialysate, or by analysis of dialysate conductivity at the dialyzer inlet and outlet in response to changes in dialysate electrolyte concentration. These measurements can be made at every dialysis, including initial and acute treatments and can help detect access recirculation. No disposables or reagents are required. Cost may be reduced by reducing the need for blood sampling and laboratory analysis.

The clinical significance of early proteinuria after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Late-onset proteinuria after renal transplantation has been universally associated with poor allograft outcomes. However, the significance of early low-grade posttransplant proteinuria remains uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed the effect of proteinuria 3 months posttransplantation on death-censored graft loss, death with a functioning graft, vascular events within the graft's life, and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 5 years. Four hundred seventy-seven renal transplants from a single center (1988-2003) with a mean follow-up of 122 months were divided into four groups based on the median protein creatinine ratio (PCR) during the 3rd posttransplant month (PCR<0.15 [group 1, n=85]; PCR 0.15-0.5 [group 2, n=245]; PCR 0.5-1.00 [group 3, n=96]; PCR>1.00 [group 4, n=51]). Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to study the impact of proteinuria on the various outcomes. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that even low-level proteinuria at 3 months predicted death-censored graft failure (group 1 [reference]--hazard ratio [HR]=1, group 2--HR=7.1, group 3--HR = 10.5, group 4--HR 16.0; P=0.001). The impact on death and the occurrence of vascular events was only significant for group 4 (HR: 2.6; P=0.01 for death and HR: 2.2; P=0.04 for vascular events). Estimated glomerular filtration rate at 5 years was group 1, 48.5 mL/min; group 2, 41.2 mL/min; group 3, 31.1 mL/min; and group 4, 24.5 mL/min (P<0.001). Continued observation of group 2 to 1 year revealed adverse outcomes with increasing proteinuria. CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade proteinuria at 3 months is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and identifies high-risk group of patients who may benefit from further intervention.