BACKGROUND: It is the prevailing view that convective dialysis techniques stabilize blood pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the intrasession hemodynamics during high-dose predilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) and low-flux hemodialsis, under strict controlled conditions. METHODS:Twelve stable hemodialysis patients were investigated in a randomized crossover blinded controlled trial. The patients were allocated to one session of predilution HDF (substitution fluid 1.20 +/- 0.10 L/kg body weight) and one session of hemodialysis at 4(1/2) hours. To eliminate confounding factors, dialysis dose, ultrafiltration volume and arterial temperature were matched. At the start of the dialysis the patients' core temperature was "locked" by an automatic feedback system regulating the dialysate temperature; thereby, patients' temperature was kept stable throughout the whole treatment. The calcium-ion concentration in the substitution/dialysis fluid was 1.25 mmol/L. Cardiac output was measured hourly by the ultrasound velocity dilution method. RESULTS:Mean blood pressure, cardiac output, stroke volume, cardiac work, and relative blood volume was significantly reduced in both treatments. Total peripheral resistance increased significantly in both groups. Ultrafiltration volume, cardiopulmonary recirculation, Kt/V, and total energy transfer were similar for hemodialysis and HDF. The pulse rate showed no significant change throughout both sessions. No significant differences were revealed between hemodialysis and HDF. CONCLUSION: The hemodynamics of predilution HDF and low-flux hemodialysis displayed a similar profile during matched conditions. An acute circulatory benefit of convective solute removal over diffusive could not be demonstrated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is the prevailing view that convective dialysis techniques stabilize blood pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the intrasession hemodynamics during high-dose predilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) and low-flux hemodialsis, under strict controlled conditions. METHODS: Twelve stable hemodialysis patients were investigated in a randomized crossover blinded controlled trial. The patients were allocated to one session of predilution HDF (substitution fluid 1.20 +/- 0.10 L/kg body weight) and one session of hemodialysis at 4(1/2) hours. To eliminate confounding factors, dialysis dose, ultrafiltration volume and arterial temperature were matched. At the start of the dialysis the patients' core temperature was "locked" by an automatic feedback system regulating the dialysate temperature; thereby, patients' temperature was kept stable throughout the whole treatment. The calcium-ion concentration in the substitution/dialysis fluid was 1.25 mmol/L. Cardiac output was measured hourly by the ultrasound velocity dilution method. RESULTS: Mean blood pressure, cardiac output, stroke volume, cardiac work, and relative blood volume was significantly reduced in both treatments. Total peripheral resistance increased significantly in both groups. Ultrafiltration volume, cardiopulmonary recirculation, Kt/V, and total energy transfer were similar for hemodialysis and HDF. The pulse rate showed no significant change throughout both sessions. No significant differences were revealed between hemodialysis and HDF. CONCLUSION: The hemodynamics of predilution HDF and low-flux hemodialysis displayed a similar profile during matched conditions. An acute circulatory benefit of convective solute removal over diffusive could not be demonstrated.
Authors: Charlotte Buchanan; Azharuddin Mohammed; Eleanor Cox; Katrin Köhler; Bernard Canaud; Maarten W Taal; Nicholas M Selby; Susan Francis; Chris W McIntyre Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Enric Vilar; Andrew C Fry; David Wellsted; James E Tattersall; Roger N Greenwood; Ken Farrington Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Christian Daugaard Peters; Krista Dybtved Kjaergaard; Jens Dam Jensen; Kent Lodberg Christensen; Charlotte Strandhave; Ida Noerager Tietze; Marija Kristina Novosel; Bo Martin Bibby; Bente Jespersen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James R Smith; Norica Zimmer; Elizabeth Bell; Bernard G Francq; Alex McConnachie; Robert Mactier Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Matthew J Kaptein; John S Kaptein; Christopher D Nguyen; Zayar Oo; Phyu Phyu Thwe; Myint Bo Thu; Elaine M Kaptein Journal: Ren Fail Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.606