Tom Cornelis1, Frank M van der Sande2, Sunny Eloot3, Eline Cardinaels4, Otto Bekers4, Jan Damoiseaux4, Karel M Leunissen2, Jeroen P Kooman2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: tom.cornelis@mumc.nl. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Nephrology Section, Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Central Diagnostic Laboratory, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Intensive hemodialysis (HD) may have significant benefits. Recently, the role of extended hemodiafiltration (HDF) has gained interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute effects of extended HD and HDF on hemodynamic response and solute removal. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Stable patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing conventional HD. INTERVENTION: 13 patients randomly completed a single study of4-hour HD (HD4), 4-hour HDF (HDF4), 8-hour HD (HD8), and 8-hour HDF (HDF8), with a 2-week interval between study sessions. Between study sessions, patients received routine conventional HD treatments. OUTCOMES: Acute hemodynamic effects and uremic toxin clearance. MEASUREMENTS: Blood pressure and heart rate, pulse wave analysis, cardiac output, and microvascular density by sublingual capillaroscopy, as well as relative blood volume and thermal variables, were measured. Clearance and removal of uremic toxins also were studied. RESULTS: Long treatments showed more stability of peripheral systolic blood pressure (change during HD4, -21.7±15.6 mm Hg; during HDF4, -23.3±20.8 mm Hg; during HD8, -6.7±15.2 mm Hg [P=0.04 vs. HD4; P=0.08 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±14.4 mm Hg [P=0.004 vs. HD4; P=0.008 vs. HDF4]). A similar observation was found for peripheral diastolic and central blood pressures. Cardiac output remained more stable in extended sessions (change during HD4, -1.4±1.5 L/min; during HDF4, -1.6±1.0 L/min; during HD8, -0.4±0.9 L/min [P=0.02 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±0.8 L/min [P=0.06 vs. HD4; P=0.03 vs. HDF4), in line with the decreased relative blood volume slope in long dialysis. No differences in microvascular density were found. Energy transfer rates were comparable (HD4, 13.3±4.7 W; HDF4, 16.2±5.6 W; HD8, 14.2±6.0 W; and HDF8, 14.5±4.3 W). Small-molecule and phosphate removal were superior during long treatments. β2-Microglobulin and fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) reduction ratios were highest in HDF8. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, only acute effects were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment time, and not modality, was the determinant for the hemodynamic response. HDF significantly improved removal of middle molecules, with superior results in extended HDF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intensive hemodialysis (HD) may have significant benefits. Recently, the role of extended hemodiafiltration (HDF) has gained interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute effects of extended HD and HDF on hemodynamic response and solute removal. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Stable patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing conventional HD. INTERVENTION: 13 patients randomly completed a single study of 4-hour HD (HD4), 4-hour HDF (HDF4), 8-hour HD (HD8), and 8-hour HDF (HDF8), with a 2-week interval between study sessions. Between study sessions, patients received routine conventional HD treatments. OUTCOMES: Acute hemodynamic effects and uremic toxin clearance. MEASUREMENTS: Blood pressure and heart rate, pulse wave analysis, cardiac output, and microvascular density by sublingual capillaroscopy, as well as relative blood volume and thermal variables, were measured. Clearance and removal of uremic toxins also were studied. RESULTS: Long treatments showed more stability of peripheral systolic blood pressure (change during HD4, -21.7±15.6 mm Hg; during HDF4, -23.3±20.8 mm Hg; during HD8, -6.7±15.2 mm Hg [P=0.04 vs. HD4; P=0.08 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±14.4 mm Hg [P=0.004 vs. HD4; P=0.008 vs. HDF4]). A similar observation was found for peripheral diastolic and central blood pressures. Cardiac output remained more stable in extended sessions (change during HD4, -1.4±1.5 L/min; during HDF4, -1.6±1.0 L/min; during HD8, -0.4±0.9 L/min [P=0.02 vs. HDF4]; and during HDF8, -0.5±0.8 L/min [P=0.06 vs. HD4; P=0.03 vs. HDF4), in line with the decreased relative blood volume slope in long dialysis. No differences in microvascular density were found. Energy transfer rates were comparable (HD4, 13.3±4.7 W; HDF4, 16.2±5.6 W; HD8, 14.2±6.0 W; and HDF8, 14.5±4.3 W). Small-molecule and phosphate removal were superior during long treatments. β2-Microglobulin and fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) reduction ratios were highest in HDF8. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, only acute effects were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment time, and not modality, was the determinant for the hemodynamic response. HDF significantly improved removal of middle molecules, with superior results in extended HDF.
Authors: Victor Gura; Matthew B Rivara; Scott Bieber; Raj Munshi; Nancy Colobong Smith; Lori Linke; John Kundzins; Masoud Beizai; Carlos Ezon; Larry Kessler; Jonathan Himmelfarb Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2016-06-02
Authors: Andreas Schneider; Markus P Schneider; Detlef H Krieter; Bernd Genser; Hubert Scharnagl; Tatjana Stojakovic; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Isabelle Chapdelaine; Camiel L M de Roij van Zuijdewijn; Ira M Mostovaya; Renée Lévesque; Andrew Davenport; Peter J Blankestijn; Christoph Wanner; Menso J Nubé; Muriel P C Grooteman; P J Blankestijn; A Davenport; C Basile; F Locatelli; F Maduell; S Mitra; C Ronco; R Shroff; J Tattersall; C Wanner Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2015-02-16