The Infant KIdney Dialysis and Utrafiltration (I-KID) Study: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Study in Infants, Comparing Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration, and Newcastle Infant Dialysis Ultrafiltration System, a Novel Infant Hemodialysis Device.

OBJECTIVES: Renal replacement therapy (RRT) options are limited for small babies because of lack of available technology. We investigated the precision of ultrafiltration, biochemical clearances, clinical efficacy, outcomes, and safety profile for a novel non-Conformité Européenne-marked hemodialysis device for babies under 8 kg, the Newcastle Infant Dialysis Ultrafiltration System (NIDUS), compared with the current options of peritoneal dialysis (PD) or continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). DESIGN: Nonblinded cluster-randomized cross-sectional stepped-wedge design with four periods, three sequences, and two clusters per sequence. SETTING: Clusters were six U.K. PICUs. PATIENTS: Babies less than 8 kg requiring RRT for fluid overload or biochemical disturbance. INTERVENTIONS: In controls, RRT was delivered by PD or CVVH, and in interventions, NIDUS was used. The primary outcome was precision of ultrafiltration compared with prescription; secondary outcomes included biochemical clearances. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At closure, 97 participants were recruited from the six PICUs (62 control and 35 intervention). The primary outcome, obtained from 62 control and 21 intervention patients, showed that ultrafiltration with NIDUS was closer to that prescribed than with control: sd controls, 18.75, intervention, 2.95 (mL/hr); adjusted ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.71; p = 0.018. Creatinine clearance was smallest and least variable for PD (mean, sd ) = (0.08, 0.03) mL/min/kg, larger for NIDUS (0.46, 0.30), and largest for CVVH (1.20, 0.72). Adverse events were reported in all groups. In this critically ill population with multiple organ failure, mortality was lowest for PD and highest for CVVH, with NIDUS in between. CONCLUSIONS: NIDUS delivers accurate, controllable fluid removal and adequate clearances, indicating that it has important potential alongside other modalities for infant RRT.

In vitro measurements of ultrafiltration precision in hemofiltration and hemodialysis devices used in infants.

BACKGROUND: To determine in vitro whether infant hemofiltration and hemodialysis devices can reliably deliver precise ultrafiltration (UF) control. METHODS: We tested the Prismaflex, Aquarius and NIDUS devices which have different circuit types, by in vitro testing with a bag of saline set up as a dummy patient, and monitoring fluid shifts by precise weighing. We looked for differences between the UF rates set and achieved and between the UF result the device displays to the clinician and the true volumes removed, which may lead to clinical errors. We performed short studies at UF settings of zero and 40 ml/h, and with and without simulating poor withdrawal and return lines, and simulated a 4-h treatment session. RESULTS: The Prismaflex setting vs actual errors and display vs actual errors had wide variances, with SDs of 4.1 and 14.0 ml by 15 min, respectively, at both zero and 40 ml/h UF settings. The Aquarius values were wider at 17.3 and 30.3 ml, respectively. For the NIDUS, the mean UF errors were close to zero, and the variances were 0.17 ml. Stop-alarms induced by an obstructed line produced extra UF errors of up to 0.2 ml. A limitation was that we used crystalloid and not colloid for these tests. CONCLUSIONS: Hemotherapy devices with conventional circuits available in the UK do not regulate UF control sufficiently well to recommend for use in small infants, but the NIDUS volumetrically controlled circuit does. All hemotherapy devices intended for small infants should be tested for UF precision. We were unable to test the CARPEDIEM or Aquadex devices. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Haemodialysing babies weighing <8 kg with the Newcastle infant dialysis and ultrafiltration system (Nidus): comparison with peritoneal and conventional haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy of the Newcastle infant dialysis and ultrafiltration system (Nidus) with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and conventional haemodialysis (HD) in infants weighing <8 kg. METHODS: We compared the urea, creatinine and phosphate clearances, the ultrafiltration precision, and the safety of the Nidus machine with PD in 7 piglets weighing 1-8 kg, in a planned randomised cross-over trial in babies, and in babies for whom no other therapy existed, some of whom later graduated to conventional HD. RESULTS: Two babies entered the randomised trial; 1 recovered rapidly on PD, the other remained on the Nidus as PD failed. Additionally, 9 babies were treated on the Nidus on humanitarian grounds: 3 because of failed PD, and 3 with permanent kidney failure later converted to conventional HD. We haemodialysed 10 babies weighing between 1.8 and 5.9 kg for 2,475 h during 354 Nidus sessions without any clinically important incidents, and without detectable haemolysis. Single-lumen vascular access was used with no blood priming of circuits. The urea, creatinine and phosphate clearances using the Nidus were around 1.5 to 2.0 ml/min in piglets and babies, and were consistently higher than PD clearances, which ranged from about 0.2 to 0.8 ml/min (p ≤ 0.0002 for each chemical). Ultrafiltration was achieved to microlitre precision by the Nidus, but varied widely with PD. Fluid removal using conventional HD was imprecise and resulted in some hypovolaemic episodes requiring correction. CONCLUSION: The Nidus can provide HD in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) and outpatient intermittent HD without blood priming for babies weighing <8 kg, It generates higher dialysis clearances than PD, and delivers more precise ultrafiltration control than either PD or conventional HD.