Dialysate saving by automated control of flow rates: comparison between individualized online hemodiafiltration and standard hemodialysis.

Cost reduction and quality improvement seem to be conflicting issues. However, online hemodiafiltration (oHDF) with new automatic functions offers a cost-efficient therapy compared to hemodialysis (HD). Seven dialysis centers conducted a randomized clinical trial with cross-over design: high-flux HD vs. postdilutional oHDF with functions coupling both dialysate and substitution flow rates to blood flow rates. During the 6 weeks of the study, all treatment parameters remained unchanged for HD and oHDF, apart from dialysate and substitution flow rate. Treatment data were recorded during each treatment, and predialytic and postdialytic concentrations of urea were recorded at the end of each study phase. The analysis involved 956 treatments of 54 patients. The mean dialysate consumption was 123.2 ± 6.4 l for HD and 113.4 ± 14.9 l for oHDF (p < 0.0001), the mean dialysis dose was 1.42 ± 0.23 for HD and 1.47 ± 0.26 for oHDF (p < 0.0001); oHDF resulted in a lower dialysate consumption (8.0% less) and a slightly increased dialysis dose (Kt/V 3.5% higher) compared to HD. oHDF with the investigated automatic functions offers substantial savings in dialysate consumption without decreasing dialysis dose.

On-line haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis: stable haematocrit with less erythropoietin and improvement of other relevant blood parameters.

BACKGROUND: Controlled randomised studies to prove improved cardiovascular stability and improved anaemia management during on-line haemodiafiltration (oHDF) are scarce. METHODS: 70 patients were treated with both haemodialysis (HD) and oHDF in a cross-over design during 2 x 24 weeks at a dialysis dose of eKt/V> or =1.2. Patients randomised into group A started on HD and switched over to oHDF, whereas patients in group B began with oHDF and were treated with HD afterwards. Intradialytic morbid events (IME), such as symptomatic hypotension or muscle cramps, were noted in case of appearance. Blood parameters reflecting anaemic status, phosphate status, lipid metabolism, oxidative stress, and accumulation of advanced glycation end products were recorded either monthly or at the end of each study phase. RESULTS: The mean incidence of IME was 0.15 IME per treatment, and there was no statistical difference between oHDF and HD. A higher haematocrit (oHDF 31.5% vs. HD 30.5%, p < 0.01) at a lower erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,913 vs. HD 5,492 IU/week, p = 0.02) was found during oHDF, when the sequence of HD and oHDF had not been taken into account. For the study groups, the results were less distinct: in group A, a higher haematocrit (HD 30.4% vs. oHDF 32.0%, p < 0.01) at a comparable erythropoietin dose (HD 5,421 vs. oHDF 5,187 IU/week, ns) was observed during oHDF, whereas in group B an identical haematocrit (oHDF 30.8% vs. HD 30.7%, ns) was achieved at a reduced erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,622 vs. HD 5,568 IU/week, p < 0.01). During oHDF, lower levels of free and protein-bound pentosidine and of serum phosphate were found. CONCLUSION: In contrast to other studies, no benefit regarding cardiovascular stability for oHDF was found, but oHDF could well offer a potential benefit regarding anaemia correction, inflammation, oxidative stress, lipid profiles, and calcium-phosphate product.

On-line hemodiafiltration does not induce inflammatory response in end-stage renal disease patients: results from a multicenter cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: On-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) represents the supreme blood purification modality for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Large-volume infusion of on-line prepared substitution fluid may, however, expose patients to inflammatory contaminants. As a result, on-line HDF might aggravate chronic inflammation, which correlates with malnutrition, cardiovascular disease, and mortality among ESRD patients. METHODS: In a multicenter cross-over study, 27 ESRD patients were randomly assigned to treatment with on-line HDF and low-flux hemodialysis (HD). After 6 months, patients were crossed to the other treatment modality, and treatment continued for another 6 months. Both on-line HDF and low-flux HD were conducted with polysulfone membranes and ultrapure dialysis fluid. Samples were drawn at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: Inflammatory parameters were elevated in the study population when compared to healthy controls. Induction of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) was comparable for on-line HDF and low-flux HD, and there was no intradialytic increase in cytokine production. As a result, interleukin-6 (IL-6) plasma levels did not differ significantly between the two treatment modalities. Similarly, no difference between on-line HDF and low-flux HD was observed for C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin. Markers of endothelial cell activation (soluble intercellular and vascular cell adhesion molecules sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1) as well as the cardiovascular risk marker cardiac troponin T (cTnT) remained elevated compared to healthy subjects, but showed no difference between the two treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: On-line HDF, as the most effective renal replacement therapy, does not provoke inflammatory response and is both safe and highly biocompatible.