Phosphate levels in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, pre-dilution haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether convective therapies allow better control of serum phosphate (P) is still undefined, and no data are available concerning on-line haemofiltration (HF). The objectives of the study are to evaluate the effect of convective treatments (CTs) on P levels in comparison with low-flux haemodialysis (HD) and to evaluate the correlates of serum phosphate in a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This analysis was performed in the database of a multicentre, open label and randomized controlled study in which 146 chronic HD patients from 27 Italian centres were randomly assigned to HD (70 patients) or CTs: on-line pre-dilution HF (36 patients) or on-line pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (40 patients). RESULTS: CTs did not affect P (P = 0.526), calcium (Ca) (P = 0.849) and parathyroid hormone levels (P = 0.622). P levels were associated with the use of phosphate binders including aluminium-based phosphate binders (P < 0.001) and sevelamer (P < 0.001), pre-dialysis bicarbonate levels (P < 0.001) and pre-dialysis blood K levels (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis (generalized linear model), serum P was again largely unassociated with CTs (P = 0.631). Notably, participating centres were by far the strongest independent correlate of serum P, explaining 45.3% of the variance of serum P over the trial and this association was confirmed at multivariate analysis. Bicarbonate (P < 0.001) and, to a weaker extent, serum K (P = 0.032) were independently related to serum P. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-flux HD, CTs did not significantly affect serum P levels. Participating centres were the main source of P variability during the trial followed by treatment with phosphate binders, serum bicarbonate and, to a weak extent, serum potassium levels (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT011583309).

Predictors of haemoglobin levels and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: results of a multicentre randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Predictors of haemoglobin (Hb) levels and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis patients have not yet been clearly defined. Some mainly uncontrolled studies suggest that online haemodiafiltration (HDF) may have a beneficial effect on Hb, whereas no data are available concerning online haemofiltration (HF). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of convective treatments (CTs) on Hb levels and ESA resistance in comparison with low-flux haemodialysis (HD) and to evaluate the predictors of these outcomes. METHODS: Primary multivariate analysis was made of a pre-specified secondary outcome of a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled study in which 146 chronic HD patients from 27 Italian centres were randomly assigned to HD (70 patients) or CTs: online pre-dilution HF (36 patients) or online pre-dilution HDF (40 patients). RESULTS: CTs did not affect Hb levels (P = 0.596) or ESA resistance (P = 0.984). Hb correlated with polycystic kidney disease (P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (P = 0.025), ferritin (P = 0.018), ESA dose (P < 0.001) and total cholesterol (P = 0.021). The participating centres were the main source of Hb variability (partial eta(2) 0.313, P < 0.001). ESA resistance directly correlated with serum ferritin (P = 0.030) and beta2 microglobulin (P = 0.065); participating centres were again a major source of variance (partial eta(2) 0.367, P < 0.001). Transferrin saturation did not predict either outcome variables (P = 0.277 and P = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-flux HD, CTs did not significantly improve Hb levels or ESA resistance. The main sources of variability were participating centres, ESA dose and the underlying disease.

Comparison between hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration in a long-term prospective cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the convective treatment modes, on-line hemofiltration (HF) and on-line hemodiafiltration (HDF), regarding cardiovascular tolerance and effects on blood pressure, when applied under similar conditions in stable dialysis patients. METHODS: 39 clinically stable dialysis patients were treated with HD for 6 months (run-in period), followed by HF and HDF in random order for 2x6 months. Similar biocompatibility (same membrane and fluid quality), similar treatment time and urea Kt/V were achieved using AK100/200 ULTRA machines, polyamide membranes in low-flux and high-flux versions and appropriate adjustment of blood flow rate (Qb) and dilution ratio (Qb/Qinf). Predilution was used for HDF (target dilution ratio = 2/1 ) as well as for HF (target dilution ratio = 1/1). RESULTS: 30 patients completed the study; 5 dropped out for non-study related reasons and 4 for non-compliance. Treatment with HF in comparison to HDF showed fewer hypotension episodes during the sessions per patient and month (HF: 0.5, HDF 1.1; p = 0.017), less plasma expander administration per patient and month (HF: 35.9 ml, HDF: 103.1 ml; p = 0.035), fewer episodes of intra-session headache (HF: 0.1, HDF: 0.4; p = 0.06), and higher pre-session MAP (HF: 98.4 mmHg, HDF: 93.8 mmHg; p = 0.037). No significant difference was found in inter-treatment weight gain, post-session MAP, or pre-session plasma sodium. CONCLUSIONS: HF and HDF provide good control of intra-session symptoms and blood pressure in stable patients. Treatment with HF resulted in a significant reduction in intra-session hypotension and a slight but significant increase in pre-session MAP, caused by an increase in systolic BP without any effect on the prevalence of hypertension or the dose of antihypertensive drugs, all compared to HDF.