BACKGROUND: Convective dialysis strategies are superior in the removal of protein-bound uraemic retention solutes. Mid-dilution and mixed-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), both combining pre-dilution and post-dilution, are promising options to further improve removal capacity and have been shown of additional benefit for large middle molecules. In this study, we compared the removal of small water-soluble and protein-bound solutes in post-dilution versus mid-dilution HDF. METHODS:Fourteen chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients were included in this crossover study. Patients were kept for 4 weeks on high-flux HD. On the mid-week session of Weeks 3 and 4, either post-dilution or reversed mid-dilution HDF were applied, in random order. Blood and dialysate flows were maintained at 300 and 800 mL/min, while the substitution flow was 75 mL/min in post-dilution and 150 mL/min in mid-dilution HDF. Based on the data collected during the sessions under study, extraction ratio (ER) and reduction ratio (RR) of small water-soluble and protein-bound solutes were calculated, as well as total solute removal (TSR) based on spent dialysate. RESULTS: No differences were observed for TSR, ER and RR for protein-bound solutes. For small water-soluble solutes, ER in post-dilution HDF was significantly higher than in mid-dilution HDF: 0.92 ± 0.02 versus 0.87 ± 0.04 for urea (P < 0.001), 0.92 ± 0.02 versus 0.88 ± 0.02 for creatinine (P < 0.001) and 0.84 ± 0.02 versus 0.82 ± 0.03 for uric acid (P = 0.009). TSR and RR were, however, not different due to the lower inlet concentrations with post-dilution HDF. CONCLUSIONS: TSR of mid-dilution and post-dilution HDF was not different for both small water-soluble and protein-bound compounds. Both strategies in the setting as applied in this study are as adequate for the removal of these solutes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Convective dialysis strategies are superior in the removal of protein-bound uraemic retention solutes. Mid-dilution and mixed-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), both combining pre-dilution and post-dilution, are promising options to further improve removal capacity and have been shown of additional benefit for large middle molecules. In this study, we compared the removal of small water-soluble and protein-bound solutes in post-dilution versus mid-dilution HDF. METHODS: Fourteen chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients were included in this crossover study. Patients were kept for 4 weeks on high-flux HD. On the mid-week session of Weeks 3 and 4, either post-dilution or reversed mid-dilution HDF were applied, in random order. Blood and dialysate flows were maintained at 300 and 800 mL/min, while the substitution flow was 75 mL/min in post-dilution and 150 mL/min in mid-dilution HDF. Based on the data collected during the sessions under study, extraction ratio (ER) and reduction ratio (RR) of small water-soluble and protein-bound solutes were calculated, as well as total solute removal (TSR) based on spent dialysate. RESULTS: No differences were observed for TSR, ER and RR for protein-bound solutes. For small water-soluble solutes, ER in post-dilution HDF was significantly higher than in mid-dilution HDF: 0.92 ± 0.02 versus 0.87 ± 0.04 for urea (P < 0.001), 0.92 ± 0.02 versus 0.88 ± 0.02 for creatinine (P < 0.001) and 0.84 ± 0.02 versus 0.82 ± 0.03 for uric acid (P = 0.009). TSR and RR were, however, not different due to the lower inlet concentrations with post-dilution HDF. CONCLUSIONS: TSR of mid-dilution and post-dilution HDF was not different for both small water-soluble and protein-bound compounds. Both strategies in the setting as applied in this study are as adequate for the removal of these solutes.
Authors: Christos Argyropoulos; Maria-Eleni Roumelioti; Abdus Sattar; John A Kellum; Lisa Weissfeld; Mark L Unruh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240