Hemodiafiltration for children with stage 5 chronic kidney disease: technical aspects and outcomes.

Despite significant medical and technical improvements in the field of dialysis, the morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 on dialysis remains extremely high. Hemodiafiltration (HDF), a dialysis method that combines the two main principles of hemodialysis (HD) and hemofiltration-diffusion and convection-has had a positive impact on survival when delivered with a high convective dose. Improved outcomes with HDF have been attributed to the following factors: HDF removes middle molecular weight uremic toxins including inflammatory cytokines, increases hemodynamic stability, and reduces inflammation and oxidative stress compared to conventional HD. Two randomized trials in adults have shown improved survival with HDF compared to high-flux HD. A large prospective cohort study in children has shown that HDF attenuated the progression of cardiovascular disease, improved bone turnover and growth, reduced inflammation, and improved blood pressure control compared to conventional HD. Importantly, children on HDF reported fewer headaches, dizziness, and cramps; had increased physical activity; and improved school attendance compared to those on HD. In this educational review, we discuss the technical aspects of HDF and results from pediatric studies, comparing outcomes on HDF vs. conventional HD. Convective volume, the cornerstone of treatment with HDF and a key determinant of outcomes in adult randomized trials, is discussed in detail, including the practical aspects of achieving an optimal convective volume.

Hemodiafiltration maintains a sustained improvement in blood pressure compared to conventional hemodialysis in children-the HDF, heart and height (3H) study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is prevalent in children on dialysis and associated with cardiovascular disease. We studied the blood pressure (BP) trends and the evolution of BP over 1 year in children on conventional hemodialysis (HD) vs. hemodiafiltration (HDF). METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the "3H - HDF-Hearts-Height" dataset, a multicenter, parallel-arm observational study. Seventy-eight children on HD and 55 on HDF who had three 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) measures over 1 year were included. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated and hypertension defined as 24-h MAP standard deviation score (SDS) ≥95th percentile. RESULTS: Poor agreement between pre-dialysis systolic BP-SDS and 24-h MAP was found (mean difference - 0.6; 95% limits of agreement -4.9-3.8). At baseline, 82% on HD and 44% on HDF were hypertensive, with uncontrolled hypertension in 88% vs. 25% respectively; p < 0.001. At 12 months, children on HDF had consistently lower MAP-SDS compared to those on HD (p < 0.001). Over 1-year follow-up, the HD group had mean MAP-SDS increase of +0.98 (95%CI 0.77-1.20; p < 0.0001), whereas the HDF group had a non-significant increase of +0.15 (95%CI -0.10-0.40; p = 0.23). Significant predictors of MAP-SDS were dialysis modality (ß = +0.83 [95%CI +0.51 - +1.15] HD vs. HDF, p < 0.0001) and higher inter-dialytic-weight-gain (IDWG)% (ß = 0.13 [95%CI 0.06-0.19]; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Children on HD had a significant and sustained increase in BP over 1 year compared to a stable BP in those on HDF, despite an equivalent dialysis dose. Higher IDWG% was associated with higher 24-h MAP-SDS in both groups.

Effects of Hemodiafiltration versus Conventional Hemodialysis in Children with ESKD: The HDF, Heart and Height Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and cardiovascular disease are common in children undergoing dialysis. Studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may reduce cardiovascular mortality in adults, but data for children are scarce. METHODS: The HDF, Heart and Height study is a nonrandomized observational study comparing outcomes on conventional hemodialysis (HD) versus postdilution online HDF in children. Primary outcome measures were annualized changes in carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) SD score and height SD score. RESULTS: We enrolled 190 children from 28 centers; 78 on HD and 55 on HDF completed 1-year follow-up. The groups were comparable for age, dialysis vintage, access type, dialysis frequency, blood flow, and residual renal function. At 1 year, cIMT SD score increased significantly in children on HD but remained static in the HDF cohort. On propensity score analysis, HD was associated with a +0.47 higher annualized cIMT SD score compared with HDF. Height SD score increased in HDF but remained static in HD. Mean arterial pressure SD score increased with HD only. Factors associated with higher cIMT and mean arterial pressure SD-scores were HD group, higher ultrafiltration rate, and higher ß2-microglobulin. The HDF cohort had lower ß2-microglobulin, parathyroid hormone, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at 1 year; fewer headaches, dizziness, or cramps; and shorter postdialysis recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: HDF is associated with a lack of progression in vascular measures versus progression with HD, as well as an increase in height not seen in the HD cohort. Patient-related outcomes improved among children on HDF correlating with improved BP control and clearances. Confirmation through randomized trials is required.

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 ).

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND: The choice between hemodiafiltration (HDF) or high-flux hemodialysis (HD) to treat end-stage kidney disease remains a matter of debate. The duration of recovery time after treatment has been associated with mortality, affects quality of life, and may therefore be important in informing patient choice. We aimed to establish whether recovery time is influenced by treatment with HDF or HD. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized patient-blinded crossover trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: 100 patients with end-stage kidney disease were enrolled from 2 satellite dialysis units in Glasgow, United Kingdom. INTERVENTION: 8 weeks of HD followed by 8 weeks of online postdilution HDF or vice versa. OUTCOMES: Posttreatment recovery time, symptomatic hypotension events, dialysis circuit clotting events, and biochemical parameters. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-reported recovery time in minutes, incidence of adverse events during treatments, hematology and biochemistry results, quality-of-life questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no overall difference in recovery time between treatments (medians for HDF vs HD of 47.5 [IQR, 0-240] vs 30 [IQR, 0-210] minutes, respectively; P=0.9). During HDF treatment, there were significant increases in rates of symptomatic hypotension (8.0% in HDF vs 5.3% in HD; relative risk [RR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P<0.001) and intradialytic tendency to clotting (1.8% in HDF vs 0.7% in HD; RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-5.0; P=0.002). Serum albumin level was significantly lower during HDF (3.2 vs 3.3g/dL; P<0.001). Health-related quality-of-life scores were equivalent. LIMITATIONS: Single center; mean achieved HDF convection volume, 20.6L. CONCLUSIONS: Patients blinded to whether they were receiving HD or HDF in a randomized controlled crossover study reported similar posttreatment recovery times and health-related quality-of-life scores.

Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis and Survival in Patients With ESRD: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials report that mortality is lower with high-convection-volume hemodiafiltration (HDF) than with hemodialysis (HD). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the French national Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry to investigate trends in HDF use and its relationship with mortality in the total population of incident dialysis patients. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The study included those who initiated HD therapy from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011, and were dialyzed for more than 3 months; follow-up extended to the end of 2012. FACTOR: HDF use at the patient and facility level. OUTCOMES: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, using Cox models to estimate HRs of HDF as time-dependent covariate at the patient level, with age as time scale and fully adjusted for comorbid conditions and laboratory data at baseline, catheter use, and facility type as time-dependent covariates. Analyses completed by Cox models for HRs of the facility-level exposure to HDF updated yearly. RESULTS: Of 28,407 HD patients, 5,526 used HDF for a median of 1.2 (IQR, 0.9-1.9) years; 2,254 of them used HDF exclusively. HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with HDF use were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.88), respectively. In patients treated exclusively with HDF, these HRs were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86). At the facility level, increasing the percentage of patients using HDF from 0% to 100% was associated with HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Observational study. CONCLUSIONS: Whether analyzed as a patient- or facility-level predictor, HDF treatment was associated with better survival.

Much caution does no harm! Organophosphate poisoning often causes pancreatitis.

Organophosphate poisoning (OP) results in various poisoning symptoms due to its strong inhibitory effect on cholinesterase. One of the occasional complications of OP is pancreatitis. A 62-year-old woman drank alcohol and went home at midnight. After she quarreled with her husband and drank 100 ml of malathion, a parasympathomimetic organophosphate that binds irreversibly to cholinesterase, she was transported to our hospital in an ambulance. On admission, activated charcoal, magnesium citrate, and pralidoxime methiodide (PAM) were used for decontamination after gastric lavage. Abdominal computed tomography detected edema of the small intestine and colon with doubtful bowel ischemia, and acute pancreatitis was suspected. Arterial blood gas analysis revealed severe lactic acidosis. The Ranson score was 6 and the APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score was 14. Based on these findings, severe acute pancreatitis was diagnosed. One day after admission, hemodiafiltration (HDF) was started for the treatment of acute pancreatitis. On the third hospital day, OP symptoms were exacerbated, with muscarinic manifestations including bradycardia and hypersalivation and decreased plasma cholinesterase activity. Atropine was given and the symptoms improved. The patient's general condition including hemodynamic status improved. Pancreatitis was attenuated by 5 days of HDF. Ultimately, it took 14 days for acute pancreatitis to improve, and the patient discharged on hospital day 32. Generally, acute pancreatitis associated with OP is mild. In fact, one previous report showed that the influence of organophosphates on the pancreas disappears in approximately 72 hours, and complicated acute pancreatitis often improves in 4-5 days. However, it was necessary to treat pancreatitis for more than 2 weeks in this case. Therefore, organophosphate-associated pancreatitis due to malathion is more severe. Although OP sometime causes severe necrotic pancreatitis or pancreatic pseudocysts, it was thought that the present patient had a good clinical course without these complications due to the appropriate intensive care including nafamostat, antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, and HDF. In conclusion, OP-associated pancreatitis requires careful assessment because it may be aggravated, as in this case.

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.