Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why choose high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration?

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mortality rate of patients on maintenance dialysis remains alarmingly high, at approximately 15–20 % per year. Increasing dialyzer urea clearance has not been shown to improve survival and hence interest has shifted towards convective therapies, such as hemodiafiltration (HDF) which can remove middle molecular weight uremic toxins, which have been suggested to increase mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease. During the last few years, four large prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in different European countries to compare survival outcomes in prevalent patients receiving conventional hemodialysis with online post-dilution HDF (OL HDF). Furthermore, a pooled individual participant data analysis from four RCTs was performed and four large meta-analyses on convective therapies have been published in the last 2 years. Taken together, these studies support the conclusion that high volume post-dilution OL HDF is associated with improved overall survival. This advantage results predominantly from a lower cardiovascular mortality, possibly due to better preservation of left ventricle mass and function. Improved intra-dialytic blood pressure stability may contribute to the beneficial effect of high volume post-dilution OL HDF on survival. The beneficial effect is not restricted to selected subgroups, such as age, comorbidity or dialysis vintage. There is no compelling evidence that high volume post-dilution OL HDF reduces mortality by improvements in traditional and non-traditional risk factors. There are still no studies or case reports published describing adverse clinical outcomes in more than 20 years of HDF clinical experience. In conclusion, most of the available data support the choice of high volume post-dilution HDF over the current dialysis techniques. However, considering that we live in the era of evidence-based medicine, the evidence supporting the superiority of high volume post-dilution OL HDF in comparison to hemodialysis is still missing: in fact, a new RCT targeting different convection volumes would be needed to definitively examine the dose–response effect shown in previous studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Registry ERA-EDTA: ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report 2011 (2013) Academic Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  2. Udayaraj U, Pruthi R, Casula A et al (2013) UK Renal Registry 16th annual report: chapter 6 demographics and outcomes of patients from different ethnic groups on renal replacement therapy in the UK. Nephron Clin Pract 125:111–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK et al (2002) Effect of dialysate dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 347:2010–2019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vanholder R, Van Laecke S, Glorieux G (2008) What is new in uremic toxicity? Pediatr Nephrol 23:1211–1221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Krieter DH, Hackl A, Rodriguez A et al (2010) Protein-bound uraemic toxin removal in haemodialysis and post-dilution haemodiafiltration. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:212–218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Basile C, Libutti P, Di Turo AL et al (2011) Removal of uraemic retention solutes in standard bicarbonate haemodialysis and long-hour slow-flow bicarbonate haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:1296–1303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Canaud B, Bragg-Gresham JL, Marshall MR et al (2006) Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: European results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 69:2087–2093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosch JP, Lew SQ, Barlee V et al (2006) Clinical use of high-efficiency hemodialysis treatments: long-term assessment. Hemodial Int 10:73–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vilar E, Fry AC, Wellsted D et al (2009) Long-term outcomes in online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: a comparative analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1944–1953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Panichi V, Rizza GM, Paoletti S et al (2008) Chronic inflammation and mortality in haemodialysis: effect of different renal replacement therapies. Results from the RISCAVID study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23:2337–2343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grooteman MPC, van den Dorpel MA, Bots ML et al; for the CONTRAST Investigators (2012) Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:1087–1096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ok E, Asci G, Toz H et al; on behalf of the “Turkish Online Haemodiafiltration Study” (2013) Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:192–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M et al; for the ESHOL Study Group (2013) High-efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 24:487–497

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B et al (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mostovaya IM, Blankestijn PJ, Bots ML et al; on behalf of the EUDIAL Working Group (2014) Clinical evidence on hemodiafiltration: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Semin Dial 27:119–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nistor I, Palmer SC, Craig JC et al (2014) Convective versus diffusive dialysis therapies for chronic kidney failure: an updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis 63:954–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Susantitaphong P, Siribamrungwong M, Jaber BL (2013) Convective therapies versus low-flux haemodialysis for chronic kidney failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:2859–2874

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang AY, Ninomiya T, Al-Kahwa A et al (2014) Effect of hemodiafiltration or hemofiltration compared with hemodialysis on mortality and cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Kidney Dis 63:968–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tattersall JE, Ward RA; EUDIAL group (2013) Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:542–550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Canaud BMM, Jausson I, Cristol JP (2004) Clinical tolerance of online HDF and impact on morbidity and cardiovascular risk factors in ESRD patients of 65 and more years old. Project supported by a French National Grant from Health Ministry (PHRC national)

  21. Peters SAE, Bots ML, Canaud B et al; on behalf of the HDF Pooling Project Investigators (2016) Haemodiafiltration and mortality in end-stage kidney disease patients: a pooled individual participant data analysis from four randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 31: 978–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grooteman MP, Blankestijn PJ, Nube MJ (2014) Not all convective dialysis therapies are equal. Am J Kidney Dis 64:819–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Davenport A, Peters SAE, Bots ML et al on behalf of the HDF Pooling Project Investigators (2016) Higher convection volume exchange with online hemodiafiltration is associated with survival advantage for dialysis patients: the effect of adjustment for body size. Kidney Int 89:193–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Canaud B, Barbieri C, Marcelli D et al (2015) Optimal convection volume for improving patient outcomes in an international incident dialysis cohort treated with online hemodiafiltration. Kidney Int 88:1108–1116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Siriopol D, Canaud B, Stuard S et al (2015) New insights into the effect of haemodiafiltration on mortality: the Romanian experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30:294–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mostovaya IM, Bots ML, van den Dorpel MA et al (2014) A randomized trial of hemodiafiltration and change in cardiovascular parameters. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9:520–526

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bellien J, Freguin-Bouilland C, Joannides R et al (2014) High-efficiency on-line haemodiafiltration improves conduit artery endothelial function compared with high-flux haemodialysis in end-stage renal disease patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29:414–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eldehni MT, Odudu A, McIntyre CW (2015) Randomized clinical trial of dialysate cooling and effects on brain white matter. J Am Soc Nephrol 26:957–965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu HJ, Yen CH, Hsu KH et al (2012) Association between cold dialysis and cardiovascular survival in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:2457–2464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S et al (2010) Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 21:1798–1807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cornelis T, van der Sande FM, Eloot S et al (2014) Acute hemodynamic response and uremic toxin removal in conventional and extended hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration: a randomized crossover study. Am J Kidney Dis 64:247–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Daugirdas JT (2016) Lower cardiovascular mortality with high-volume hemodiafiltration: a cool effect? Nephrol Dial Transplant 31:353–356

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding agency granted the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nephrology, Clinical Research Branch, Miulli General Hospital, 70121, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy

    Carlo Basile

  2. University College London Medical School, Royal Free Hospital, Centre for Nephrology, University College London, London, UK

    Andrew Davenport

  3. Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Peter J. Blankestijn

Authors
  1. Carlo Basile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Davenport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter J. Blankestijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Basile.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basile, C., Davenport, A. & Blankestijn, P.J. Why choose high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration?. J Nephrol 30, 181–186 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-016-0343-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-016-0343-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation