Journal of Nephrology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 181–186 | Cite as

Why choose high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration?

  • Carlo BasileEmail author
  • Andrew Davenport
  • Peter J. Blankestijn


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.


Cardiovascular mortality Comvection Hemodiafiltration Hemodialysis Online post-dilution hemodiafiltration Sudden death 



No funding agency granted the present study.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 1.
    Registry ERA-EDTA: ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report 2011 (2013) Academic Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 125:111–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK et al (2002) Effect of dialysate dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 347:2010–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vanholder R, Van Laecke S, Glorieux G (2008) What is new in uremic toxicity? Pediatr Nephrol 23:1211–1221CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krieter DH, Hackl A, Rodriguez A et al (2010) Protein-bound uraemic toxin removal in haemodialysis and post-dilution haemodiafiltration. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:212–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 26:1296–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 69:2087–2093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch JP, Lew SQ, Barlee V et al (2006) Clinical use of high-efficiency hemodialysis treatments: long-term assessment. Hemodial Int 10:73–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 4:1944–1953CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 23:2337–2343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 23:1087–1096CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 25:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 24:487–497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B et al (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 27:119–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 63:954–967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 28:2859–2874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 63:968–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tattersall JE, Ward RA; EUDIAL group (2013) Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:542–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)Google Scholar
  21. 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: 978–984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grooteman MP, Blankestijn PJ, Nube MJ (2014) Not all convective dialysis therapies are equal. Am J Kidney Dis 64:819–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 89:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 88:1108–1116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 30:294–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 9:520–526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 29:414–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eldehni MT, Odudu A, McIntyre CW (2015) Randomized clinical trial of dialysate cooling and effects on brain white matter. J Am Soc Nephrol 26:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hsu HJ, Yen CH, Hsu KH et al (2012) Association between cold dialysis and cardiovascular survival in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27:2457–2464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S et al (2010) Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 21:1798–1807CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 64:247–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Daugirdas JT (2016) Lower cardiovascular mortality with high-volume hemodiafiltration: a cool effect? Nephrol Dial Transplant 31:353–356Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Nephrology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nephrology, Clinical Research BranchMiulli General HospitalAcquaviva delle FontiItaly
  2. 2.University College London Medical School, Royal Free Hospital, Centre for NephrologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of NephrologyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations