Intermittent Convective Therapies in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In critically ill patients requiring intermittent renal replacement therapy (RRT), the benefits of convective versus diffusive clearance remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety, clinical efficacy, and clearance efficiency of hemofiltration (HF) and hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving intermittent RRT. METHOD: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO. We included clinical trials and observational studies that reported the use of intermittent HF or HDF in adult patients with AKI. The following outcomes were included: mortality, renal recovery, clearance efficacy, intradialytic hemodynamic stability, circuit loss, and inflammation modulation. RESULTS: A total of 3,169 studies were retrieved and screened. Four randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies were included (n: 615 patients). Compared with conventional HD, intermittent convective therapies had no effect on in-hospital mortality (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-1.99), renal recovery at 30 days (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.16), time-to-renal recovery (mean difference [MD], 0.77; 95% CI, -6.56 to 8.10), and number of dialysis sessions until renal recovery (MD, -1.34; 95% CI, -3.39 to 0.72). The overall quality of included studies was low, and dialysis parameters were suboptimal for all included studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in short-term mortality and renal recovery in patients with severe AKI when treated with intermittent HF or HDF compared to conventional HD. This systematic review emphasizes the need for further trials evaluating optimal convective parameters in AKI patients treated with intermittent dialysis.

The significance of serum levels of soluble interleukin-2 receptor in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.

Background: Elevated serum levels of sIL-2R are commonly observed in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). However, the clinical implications in these subjects are unclear. This study is aimed to assess the significance of elevated sIL-2R levels in MHD patients.Methods: A total of 382 MHD patients were followed-up from September 2016 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: high sIL-2R, with sIL-2R levels ≥2-fold of the upper limit of normal (710 U/ml); and low sIL-2R, with sIL-2R levels < 2-fold the upper limit of normal. The relationships between sIL-2R levels and other clinical parameters, as well as patient prognosis were both assessed.Results: The median concentration of sIL-2R was 1268 U/mL. A total of 372 (97.38%) patients exhibited sIL-2R levels higher than the upper limit of the normal range. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that monocyte count (ß = 0.1571, p = 0.01), and ß2-MG (ß = 0.2635, p < 0.0001), hemoglobin (ß = -0.1610, p = 0.001), SCr (ß = -0.3471, p < 0.0001), and HDL-C (ß = -0.1091, p = 0.029) levels were independent factors influencing serum concentrations of sIL-2R. High sIL-2R was significantly correlated with non-cardiovascular-related mortality (OR 2.97 [95% CI 1.59-5.56; p = 0.001), of which 39 (82.98%) were attributed to infection and/or cancer.Conclusions: Elevated sIL-2R is prevalent in MHD patients and related with several unfavorable parameters. sIL-2R appears to have no ability to predict cardiovascular mortality, which accounts for approximately one-half of all deaths. However, sIL-2R may be beneficial in predicting noncardiovascular mortality.

Protein-Bound Uremic Toxins in Hemodialysis Patients Relate to Residual Kidney Function, Are Not Influenced by Convective Transport, and Do Not Relate to Outcome.

Protein-bound uremic toxins (PBUTs) are predominantly excreted by renal tubular secretion and hardly removed by traditional hemodialysis (HD). Accumulation of PBUTs is proposed to contribute to the increased morbidity and mortality of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Preserved PBUT excretion in patients with residual kidney function (RKF) and/or increased PBUT clearance with improved dialysis techniques might improve the prognosis of patients with ESKD. The aims of this study are to explore determinants of PBUTs in HD patients, and investigate whether hemodiafiltration (HDF) lowers PBUT plasma concentrations, and whether PBUTs are related to the outcome. Predialysis total plasma concentrations of kynurenine, kynurenic acid, indoxyl sulfate, indole-3-acetic acid, p-cresyl sulfate, p-cresyl glucuronide, and hippuric acid were measured by UHPLC-MS at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up in the first 80 patients participating in the CONvective TRAnsport Study (CONTRAST), a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of online HDF versus low-flux HD on all-cause mortality and new cardiovascular events. RKF was inversely related to kynurenic acid (p < 0.001), indoxyl sulfate (p = 0.001), indole-3-acetic acid (p = 0.024), p-cresyl glucuronide (p = 0.004) and hippuric acid (p < 0.001) plasma concentrations. Only indoxyl sulfate decreased by 8.0% (-15.3 to 34.6) in patients treated with HDF and increased by 11.9% (-15.4 to 31.9) in HD patients after 6 months of follow-up (HDF vs. HD: p = 0.045). No independent associations were found between PBUT plasma concentrations and either risk of all-cause mortality or new cardiovascular events. In summary, in the current population, RKF is an important determinant of PBUT plasma concentrations in HD patients. The addition of convective transport did not consistently decrease PBUT plasma concentrations and no relation was found between PBUTs and cardiovascular endpoints.

Association of Net Ultrafiltration Rate With Mortality Among Critically Ill Adults With Acute Kidney Injury Receiving Continuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Normal vs Augmented Level (RENAL) of Renal Replacement Therapy Trial.

Importance: Net ultrafiltration (NUF) is frequently used to treat fluid overload among critically ill patients, but whether the rate of NUF affects outcomes is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of NUF with survival among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury being treated with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Randomized Evaluation of Normal vs Augmented Level (RENAL) of Renal Replacement Therapy trial was conducted between December 30, 2005, and November 28, 2008, at 35 intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand among critically ill adults with acute kidney injury who were being treated with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration. This secondary analysis began in May 2018 and concluded in January 2019. Exposures: Net ultrafiltration rate, defined as the volume of fluid removed per hour adjusted for patient body weight. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted 90-day survival. Results: Of 1434 patients, the median (interquartile range) age was 67.3 (56.9-76.3) years; 924 participants (64.4%) were male; median (interquartile range) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score was 100 (84-118); and 634 patients (44.2%) died. Using tertiles, 3 groups were defined: high, NUF rate greater than 1.75 mL/kg/h; middle, NUF rate from 1.01 to 1.75 mL/kg/h; and low, NUF rate less than 1.01 mL/kg/h. The high-tertile group compared with the low-tertile group was not associated with death from day 0 to 6. However, death occurred in 51 patients (14.7%) in the high-tertile group vs 30 patients (8.6%) in the low-tertile group from day 7 to 12 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.02); 45 patients (15.3%) in the high-tertile group vs 25 patients (7.9%) in the low-tertile group from day 13 to 26 (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.07); and 48 patients (19.2%) in the high-tertile group vs 29 patients (9.9%) in the low-tertile group from day 27 to 90 (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.16-2.39). Every 0.5-mL/kg/h increase in NUF rate was associated with increased mortality (3-6 days: aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; 7-12 days: aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; 13-26 days: aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; 27-90 days: aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22). Using longitudinal analyses, increase in NUF rate was associated with lower survival (ß = .056; P < .001). Hypophosphatemia was more frequent among patients in the high-tertile group compared with patients in the middle-tertile group and patients in the low-tertile group (high: 308 of 477 patients at risk [64.6%]; middle: 293 of 472 patients at risk [62.1%]; low: 247 of 466 patients at risk [53.0%]; P < .001). Cardiac arrhythmias requiring treatment occurred among all groups: high, 176 patients (36.8%); middle: 175 patients (36.5%); and low: 147 patients (30.8%) (P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients, NUF rates greater than 1.75 mL/kg/h compared with NUF rates less than 1.01 mL/kg/h were associated with lower survival. Residual confounding may be present from unmeasured risk factors, and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00221013.

Short-term results of continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus peritoneal dialysis in 40 neonates with inborn errors of metabolism.

Several recent studies have reported that toxic metabolites accumulated in the body as a product of inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) are eliminated more rapidly with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) than with peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, there is still uncertainty about the impacts of dialysis modalities on the short-term outcome. Here, it was aimed to investigate the effects of dialysis modalities on the short-term outcome. This retrospective study included 40 newborn infants who underwent PD (29 patients) or CVVHDF (11 patients) due to inborn errors of metabolism at a tertiary centre, between June 2013 and March 2018. The outcomes and the potential effects of the dialysis modality were evaluated. Of 40 patients, 21 were urea cycle defect, 14 were organic academia, and 5 were maple syrup urine disease. The median 50% reduction time of toxic metabolites were shorter in patients treated with CVVHDF (p < 0.05). Catheter blockage was the most common complication observed in PD group (24.1%), whereas in CVVHDF group hypotension and filter blockage were more common. There was no significant difference in mortality between dialysis groups (38% vs. 45.4%, p > 0.05). In patients with hyperammonaemia, duration of plasma ammonia > 200 µg/dL was the most important factor influencing mortality (OR 1.05, CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.007).Conclusion: This study showed that CVVHDF is more efficient than PD to rapidly eliminate toxic metabolites caused by IEM in newborn infants, but not in improving survival. What is Known: •Toxic metabolites are eliminated more rapidly with CVVHDF than with PD. •Higher complication rates were reported with rigid peritoneal catheters in PD and catheter blockage in CVVHDF. What is New: •Prolonged duration of plasma ammonia levels above a safe limit (200 µg/dL) was associated with increased mortality. •Lower catheter-related complication rates may have been associated with the use of Tenckhoff catheters in PD and the use of right internal jugular vein in CVVHDF.

Patient survival on haemodiafiltration and haemodialysis: a cohort study using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry.

Background: It is unclear if haemodiafiltration improves patient survival compared with standard haemodialysis. Observational studies have tended to show benefit with haemodiafiltration, while meta-analyses have not provided definitive proof of superiority. Methods: Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, this binational inception cohort study compared all adult patients who commenced haemodialysis in Australia and New Zealand between 2000 and 2014. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality was the secondary outcome. Outcomes were measured from the first haemodialysis treatment and were examined using multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were censored at permanent discontinuation of haemodialysis or at 31 December 2014. Analyses were stratified by country. Results: The study included 26 961 patients (4110 haemodiafiltration, 22 851 standard haemodialysis; 22 774 Australia, 4187 New Zealand) with a median follow-up of 5.31 (interquartile range 2.87-8.36) years. Median age was 62 years, 61% were male, 71% were Caucasian. Compared with standard haemodialysis, haemodiafiltration was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for Australia 0.79, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.72-0.87; adjusted HR for New Zealand 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00]. In Australian patients, there was also an association between haemodiafiltration and reduced cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95). Conclusion: Haemodiafiltration was associated with superior survival across patient subgroups of age, sex and comorbidity.

The protective effect of different dialysis types on residual renal function in patients with maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Residual renal function (RRF) is an important determinant of mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Different dialysis types may have different effects on RRF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to examine the RRF protective effect of different dialysis types for hemodialysis patients. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Dialysis types included low-flux hemodialysis (LFHD), high-flux hemodialysis (HFHD), hemodiafiltration (HDF), and hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (HD+HP). The mean of endogenous creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and urea clearance rate (Curea), or urine volume was used to estimate RRF [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 6.05-16.80]. RESULTS: There were 12 articles involving 1224 patients, including 11 random controlled trials and 1 cohort study. Meta-analysis showed that the RRF protective effect of HFHD [mean difference (MD) = 1.48, 95% CI (2.11 to 0.86), P < .01] and HD+HP [MD = 0.41, 95% CI (0.69 to 0.12), P = .005] was better than that of LFHD, and the RRF decline rate was the lowest in HFHD group [MD = 0.13, 95% CI (0.17 to 0.09), P < .01]. Descriptive analysis showed that HDF could better protect RRF when compared with LFHD. However, there was no consistency among other interventions when removing LFHD due to limited data. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis, the HFHD, HD+HP and HDF may better protect RRF, compared with LFHD.

A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of High Cutoff Versus Standard Hemofiltration in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury.

OBJECTIVES: In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury receiving vasopressors, high cytokine levels may sustain the shock state. High cutoff hemofiltration achieves greater cytokine removal in ex vivo and in animal models and may reduce the duration of shock but may also increase albumin losses. DESIGN: This was a single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff to continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital in Australia. PATIENTS: Vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury who were admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Norepinephrine-free time were calculated in critically ill vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury, randomized to either continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff or continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were randomized with the following characteristics (continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff vs continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard); median age of 65 versus 70 year, percentage of males 47% versus 68%, and median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores of 25 versus 23.5. The median hours of norepinephrine-free time at day 7 were 32 (0-110.8) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 56 hours (0-109.3 hr) (p = 0.520) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. Inhospital mortality was 55.6% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff versus 34.2% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard (adjusted odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.81-7.66; p = 0.191). There was no significant difference in time to cessation of norepinephrine (p = 0.358), time to cessation of hemofiltration (p = 0.563), and filter life (p = 0.21). Serum albumin levels (p = 0.192) were similar and the median dose of IV albumin given was 90 grams (20-212 g) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 80 grams (15-132 g) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard (p = 0.252). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff did not reduce the duration of vasopressor support or mortality or change albumin levels compared with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard.

Randomised, open-label, multicentre trial comparing haemodialysis plus haemoperfusion versus haemodialysis alone in adult patients with end-stage renal disease (HD/HP vs HD): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Haemodialysis (HD) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, highly protein bound or large molecular weight uremic toxins such as phenolic and indolic compounds and homocysteine, which are associated with adverse outcomes such as cardiovascular disease of patients with ESRD, are difficult to remove via HD but can be effectively eliminates by haemoperfusion (HP). The proposed trial (referred to as HD/HP vs HD below) is a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial comparing HD plus HP versus HD alone in adult patients with ESRD. The primary endpoint measure is all-cause mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to enrol 1364 maintenance HD patients from 11 medical centres in Shanghai. Participants will be randomised to receive HD plus HP or HD alone at a 1:1 ratio after 1-month run-in period. In both arms, patients will receive low-flux HD at a frequency of two times a week and haemodiafiltration at a frequency of once a week. In the intervention group, subjects also received HP once every 2 weeks. Follow-up is scheduled at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation, and will consist the following: routine physical examinations, standard lab panels (blood routine, liver/residual kidney functions, tests of the coagulation system, etc), dialysis adequacy (standard Kt/V), chest X-ray, ECG, echocardiography, heart function rating. Adverse events will be assessed according to the international conference on harmonisation guidelines. The primary outcome is 24-month all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will include cardiovascular-related mortality, the occurrence of major cardiovascular events and the quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committees of all 11 participating centres. Clinical Research Unit of Xin Hua Hospital will oversee the study. The results will be presented at national and international academic meetings, and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03227770; Pre-results.

Ultrafiltration rate in conventional hemodialysis: Where are the limits and what are the consequences?

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration rate (UFR) has attracted attention as a modifiable aspect of volume management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence that links UFR to patient outcomes and discuss UFR cut-offs proposed, and discuss possible consequences of adapting UFR as a quality metric. RESULTS: Higher UFRs has been associated with younger age, longer dialysis vintage, greater prevalence of comorbidities, higher Kt/V, lower weight, greater interdialytic weight gain, lower residual renal function, and shorter treatment times. Many of the characteristics associated with high UFRs have also been independently associated with poor patient outcomes. Four observational studies have assessed the association between UFR and patient mortality. All of them reported an association between higher UFR and greater patient mortality, though the studies differed in their definition of UFR, follow-up, and adjustment for confounding. Evidence for the association between higher UFR and potential mediations of the mortality association, such as interdialytic hypotension, cardiac remodeling, and cardiovascular events was less consistent. There was a graded association between higher UFRs and all-cause mortality; no definitive cut-off for acceptable UFR can be established based on the current evidence. Targeting UFR in isolation might result in volume expansion and worsening patient outcomes. Residual confounding likely contributed to the findings of the observational studies. No randomized controlled trials addressed the questions. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting UFR limits is weak and confounded. Randomized controlled trials are needed before UFR can be used as a quality of care indicator.

Comparison of survival between dialysis patients with incident high-flux hemodialysis versus on-line hemodiafiltration: A single center experience in Saudi Arabia.

Conventional hemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment modality used for renal replacement therapy. The concept of HD is based on the diffusion of solutes across a semipermeable membrane. Hemofiltration (HF) is based on convective transport of solutes; hemodiafiltration (HDF) is based on combined convective and diffusive therapies. Data about survival benefit of on-line HDF (OL-HDF) over high-flux HD (HF-HD) is conflicting. We conducted this study to investigate if there is a survival difference between the two treatment modalities. This study is a retrospective, single-center study in which 78 patients were screened; 18 were excluded and 60 patients were analyzed. The study patients were aged 47.5 ± 20.7 years, 33 patients (55%) were on HF-HD, and 27 patients (45%) were on OL-HDF. A total of 24 patients (40%) of both groups were diabetic and, the mean duration on dialysis was 43.5 ±21.3 months in the HF-HD group and 41.2 ± 22.0 months in the OL-HDF group. The mean substitution volume for OL-HDF was 22.3 ± 2.5 L. Survival was 73% [95%, confidence interval (CI) 60-84] in the HF-HD group and 65% (95%, CI 54-75) in the OL-HDF group by the end of the study period. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI comparing HF-HD to high-volume postdilution OL-HDF was 0.78 (0.10-5.6; P = 0.810). Kaplan-Meier analysis for patient survival over five years showed no significant difference between the two modalities. Prospective controlled trials with a larger number of patients will be needed to assess the long-term clinical outcome of postdilution OL-HDF over HF-HD.

Mortality risk in patients on hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: a 'real-world' comparison from the DOPPS.

Background: With its convective component, hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides better middle molecule clearance compared with hemodialysis (HD) and is postulated to improve survival. A previous analysis of Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) data in 1998-2001 found lower mortality rates for high replacement fluid volume HDF versus HD. Randomized controlled trials have not shown uniform survival advantage for HDF; in secondary (non-randomized) analyses, better outcomes were observed in patients receiving the highest convection volumes. Methods: In a 'real-world' setting, we analyzed patients on dialysis >90 days from seven European countries in DOPPS Phases 4 and 5 (2009-15). Adjusted Cox regression was used to study HDF (versus HD) and mortality, overall and by replacement fluid volume. Results: Among 8567 eligible patients, 2012 (23%) were on HDF, ranging from 42% in Sweden to 12% in Germany. Median follow-up was 1.5 years during which 1988 patients died. The adjusted mortality hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.14 (1.00-1.29) for any HDF versus HD and 1.08 (0.92-1.28) for HDF >20 L replacement fluid volume versus HD. Similar results were found for cardiovascular and infection-related mortality. In an additional analysis aiming to avoid treatment-by-indication bias, we did not observe lower mortality rates in facilities using more HDF (versus HD). Conclusions: Our results do not support the notion that HDF provides superior patient survival. Further trials designed to test the effect of high-volume HDF (versus lower volume HDF versus HD) on clinical outcomes are needed to adequately inform clinical practices.

Treatment tolerance and patient-reported outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration compared to high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly.

Large cohort studies suggest that high convective volumes associated with online hemodiafiltration may reduce the risk of mortality/morbidity compared to optimal high-flux hemodialysis. By contrast, intradialytic tolerance is not well studied. The aim of the FRENCHIE (French Convective versus Hemodialysis in Elderly) study was to compare high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration in terms of intradialytic tolerance. In this prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial, 381 elderly chronic hemodialysis patients (over age 65) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to either high-flux hemodialysis or online hemodiafiltration. The primary outcome was intradialytic tolerance (day 30-day 120). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk biomarkers, morbidity, and mortality. During the observational period for intradialytic tolerance, 85% and 84% of patients in high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration arms, respectively, experienced at least one adverse event without significant difference between groups. As exploratory analysis, intradialytic tolerance was also studied, considering the sessions as a statistical unit according to treatment actually received. Over a total of 11,981 sessions, 2,935 were complicated by the occurrence of at least one adverse event, with a significantly lower occurrence in online hemodiafiltration with fewer episodes of intradialytic symptomatic hypotension and muscle cramps. By contrast, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality were not different in both groups. An improvement in the control of metabolic bone disease biomarkers and ß2-microglobulin level without change in serum albumin concentration was observed with online hemodiafiltration. Thus, overall outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration over high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly.

Serum sclerostin: relation with mortality and impact of hemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND: The glycoprotein sclerostin (Scl; 22 kDa), which is involved in bone metabolism, may play a role in vascular calcification in haemodialysis (HD) patients. In the present study, we investigated the relation between serum Scl (sScl) and mortality. The effects of dialysis modality and the magnitude of the convection volume in haemodiafiltration (HDF) on sScl were also investigated. METHODS: In a subset of patients from the CONTRAST study, a randomized controlled trial comparing HDF with HD, sScl was measured at baseline and at intervals of 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Patients were divided into quartiles, according to their baseline sScl. The relation between time-varying sScl and mortality with a 4-year follow-up period was investigated using crude and adjusted Cox regression models. Linear mixed models were used for longitudinal measurements of sScl. RESULTS: The mean (±standard deviation) age of 396 test subjects was 63.6 (±13.9 years), 61.6% were male and the median follow-up was 2.9 years. Subjects with the highest sScl had a lower mortality risk than those with the lowest concentrations [adjusted hazard ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.31-0.86, P = 0.01)]. Stratified models showed a stable sScl in patients treated with HD (Δ +2.9 pmol/L/year, 95% CI -0.5 to +6.3, P = 0.09) and a decreasing concentration in those treated with HDF (Δ -4.5 pmol/L/year, 95% CI -8.0 to -0.9, P = 0.02). The relative change in the latter group was related to the magnitude of the convection volume. CONCLUSIONS: (i) A high sScl is associated with a lower mortality risk in patients with end-stage kidney disease; (ii) treatment with HDF causes sScl to fall; and (iii) the relative decline in patients treated with HDF is dependent on the magnitude of the convection volume.

Why choose high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration?

The mortality rate of patients on maintenance dialysis remains alarmingly high, at approximately 15-20 % per year. Increasing dialyzer urea clearance has not been shown to improve survival and hence interest has shifted towards convective therapies, such as hemodiafiltration (HDF) which can remove middle molecular weight uremic toxins, which have been suggested to increase mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease. During the last few years, four large prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in different European countries to compare survival outcomes in prevalent patients receiving conventional hemodialysis with online post-dilution HDF (OL HDF). Furthermore, a pooled individual participant data analysis from four RCTs was performed and four large meta-analyses on convective therapies have been published in the last 2 years. Taken together, these studies support the conclusion that high volume post-dilution OL HDF is associated with improved overall survival. This advantage results predominantly from a lower cardiovascular mortality, possibly due to better preservation of left ventricle mass and function. Improved intra-dialytic blood pressure stability may contribute to the beneficial effect of high volume post-dilution OL HDF on survival. The beneficial effect is not restricted to selected subgroups, such as age, comorbidity or dialysis vintage. There is no compelling evidence that high volume post-dilution OL HDF reduces mortality by improvements in traditional and non-traditional risk factors. There are still no studies or case reports published describing adverse clinical outcomes in more than 20 years of HDF clinical experience. In conclusion, most of the available data support the choice of high volume post-dilution HDF over the current dialysis techniques. However, considering that we live in the era of evidence-based medicine, the evidence supporting the superiority of high volume post-dilution OL HDF in comparison to hemodialysis is still missing: in fact, a new RCT targeting different convection volumes would be needed to definitively examine the dose-response effect shown in previous studies.