Literature DB >> 31583845

Comparison of Solute Removal Properties Between High-Efficient Dialysis Modalities in Low Blood Flow Rate.

Francisco Maduell1, José Jesús Broseta1, Lida Rodas1, Enrique Montagud-Marrahi1, Diana Rodriguez-Espinosa1, Evelyn Hermida1, Marta Arias-Guillén1, Néstor Fontseré1, Manel Vera1, Miquel Gómez1, Bernardino González2, Nayra Rico2.   

Abstract

Blood flow (Qb) is one of the dialysis parameters most strongly influencing the performance of dialysis modalities. However, few studies have compared different dialysis modalities in patients with low Qb. We conducted a prospective, single-center study in 21 patients. Each patient underwent four dialysis sessions with routine dialysis parameters: high-flux hemodialysis (HD), predilution hemodiafiltration (pre-HDF), expanded HD (HDx), and postdilution HDF (post-HDF). The removal ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2 -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1 -microglobulin, free kappa and lambda immunoglobulin light chains (ķFLC and λFLC), α1 -acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. A proportional part of the dialysate was collected to quantify albumin loss. There were no differences in urea and creatinine RRs. The β2 -microglobulin RR was higher in pre-HDF and post-HDF. Myoglobin and prolactin RRs were higher with HDx and post-HDF. The α1 -microglobulin and α1 -acid glycoprotein RRs were significantly higher with post-HDF than with other treatments, and RRs obtained with HDx were higher than obtained with HD and pre-HDF. Free ķFLC and λFLC RRs showed the following results in ascending order: HD, pre-HDF, HDx, and post-HDF, most of them with statistical significance. Albumin loss varied from 0.45 g with HD to 3.5 g with post-HDF. The global removal score values were 41.0 ± 4.8% with HD, 44.0 ± 5.2% with pre-HDF, 49.5 ± 4.6% with HDx, and 54.8 ± 5.3% with post-HDF, with significant differences between all treatment modalities. In conclusion, this study confirms the superiority of post-HDF over high-flux HD, pre-HDF, and HDx in patients with low Qb. HDx was the closest alternative to post-HDF and was clearly superior to HD and pre-HDF. Finally, pre-HDF was also superior to HD. With this Qb, there was a higher risk of underdialysis, both diffusive and convective, especially in patients with a session duration of less than 5 h.
© 2019 International Society for Apheresis, Japanese Society for Apheresis, and Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood flow; Expanded hemodialysis; High-flux hemodialysis; Postdilution hemodiafiltration; Predilution hemodiafiltration

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31583845     DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.13440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Apher Dial        ISSN: 1744-9979            Impact factor:   1.762


  5 in total

1.  Characterization of the cylindrical electrospun nanofibrous polysulfone membrane for hemodialysis with modelling approach.

Authors:  Farideh Mohammadi; Farzaneh Mohammadi; Zeynab Yavari
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Expanded hemodialysis as effective alternative to on-line hemodiafiltration: A randomized mid-term clinical trial.

Authors:  Fernando Hadad-Arrascue; Lars-Göran Nilsson; Angela S Rivera; Angelito A Bernardo; Juan B Cabezuelo Romero
Journal:  Ther Apher Dial       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.195

3.  Effects of Medium Cut-Off Versus High-Flux Hemodialysis Membranes on Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Maryam Kandi; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Rachel Couban; Celina Wu; Gihad Nesrallah
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2022-01-18

4.  Changes in practice patterns in Japan from before to after JSDT 2013 guidelines on hemodialysis prescriptions: results from the JDOPPS.

Authors:  Tadashi Tomo; Maria Larkina; Ayumi Shintani; Tomonari Ogawa; Bruce M Robinson; Brian Bieber; Lisa Henn; Ronald L Pisoni
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 2.388

5.  Efficacy and safety of expanded hemodialysis in hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Yuchao Zhao; Liangying Gan; Qingyu Niu; Mengfan Ni; Li Zuo
Journal:  Ren Fail       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 2.606

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.