BACKGROUND/AIMS: Intradialytic hypotension is the most common complication of modern day haemodialysis (HD). Convective modalities, including haemodiafiltration (HDF) are reported to result in greater cardiovascular stability compared to standard HD, which has been suggested to be due to improved solute transport between compartments. We therefore investigated the effect of treatment on body water by bioimpedance. METHODS: We measured the change in extracellular water (ECW) and intracellular water (ICW) in 263 outpatients attending for HD using cooled dialysate and 134 patients for HDF. RESULTS: Patient cohorts were matched for demographics, dialysate composition, ultrafiltration rate, and session duration. The fall in systolic blood pressure following HD was -11.8 mm Hg (-25.3 to 2.3) and not different from that following HDF -12 mm Hg (-27 to 6). Similarly there were no differences in pretreatment serum sodium and dialysate sodium gradient [HD 1 mmol/l (-1 to 3) vs. HDF 2 mmol/l (1 to 4)], or change in serum sodium posttreatment [HD 0 mmol/l (-2 to 2) vs. HDF 1 mmol/l (-1 to 3)]. There were no differences in ICW or ECW pretreatment, and following treatment the reduction in ICW and ECW did not differ [ICW HD -3.5% (-5.7 to -1.8) vs. -4.1% (-6.0 to -1.7), ECW HD -7.1% (-9.4 to -4.7) vs. HDF -7.1% (-9.7 to -4.9)]. CONCLUSION: We were unable to demonstrate any advantage for HDF over HD using cooled dialysate in terms of changes in blood pressure during a treatment session, or differences in the relative changes in ICW or ECW volumes.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Intradialytic hypotension is the most common complication of modern day haemodialysis (HD). Convective modalities, including haemodiafiltration (HDF) are reported to result in greater cardiovascular stability compared to standard HD, which has been suggested to be due to improved solute transport between compartments. We therefore investigated the effect of treatment on body water by bioimpedance. METHODS: We measured the change in extracellular water (ECW) and intracellular water (ICW) in 263 outpatients attending for HD using cooled dialysate and 134 patients for HDF. RESULTS:Patient cohorts were matched for demographics, dialysate composition, ultrafiltration rate, and session duration. The fall in systolic blood pressure following HD was -11.8 mm Hg (-25.3 to 2.3) and not different from that following HDF -12 mm Hg (-27 to 6). Similarly there were no differences in pretreatment serum sodium and dialysate sodium gradient [HD 1 mmol/l (-1 to 3) vs. HDF 2 mmol/l (1 to 4)], or change in serum sodium posttreatment [HD 0 mmol/l (-2 to 2) vs. HDF 1 mmol/l (-1 to 3)]. There were no differences in ICW or ECW pretreatment, and following treatment the reduction in ICW and ECW did not differ [ICW HD -3.5% (-5.7 to -1.8) vs. -4.1% (-6.0 to -1.7), ECW HD -7.1% (-9.4 to -4.7) vs. HDF -7.1% (-9.7 to -4.9)]. CONCLUSION: We were unable to demonstrate any advantage for HDF over HD using cooled dialysate in terms of changes in blood pressure during a treatment session, or differences in the relative changes in ICW or ECW volumes.