Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 1191–1200 | Cite as

Survival of incident patients on high-volume online hemodiafiltration compared to low-volume online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis

  • Goran ImamovićEmail author
  • Rajko Hrvačević
  • Sonja Kapun
  • Daniele Marcelli
  • Inga Bayh
  • Aileen Grassmann
  • Laura Scatizzi
  • Jelena Maslovarić
  • Bernard Canaud
Nephrology - Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Hemodiafiltration is becoming a preferred treatment modality for dialysis patients in many countries. The volume of substitution fluid delivered has been indicated as an independent mortality risk factor. The aim of this study is to compare patient survival on three different treatment modalities: high-flux hemodialysis, low-volume online HDF (oHDF) and high-volume oHDF.

Methods

Incident hemodialysis and oHDF patients treated in 13 NephroCare centers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Slovenia between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011, were included in this epidemiological cohort study. High-volume oHDF was defined as substitution volume higher than the median substitution volume infused, otherwise low-volume. Main predictor was treatment modality at baseline and in time-dependent model. Other predictors were age, gender, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular accident, arrhythmia, hemoglobin and C-reactive protein.

Results

Four hundred and forty-two patients were included in the study. Median substitution fluid volume was 20.4 L. Mean difference between the oHDF groups in substitution fluid volume was 8.3 ± 5.2 L [95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) 7.1–9.5, p < 0.0001]. The unadjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % CI compared to high-flux HD were 0.87 (0.5–1.5) for low-volume oHDF and 0.29 (0.13–0.63) for high-volume oHDF. After the adjustment for covariates, the HR for patients on low-volume oHDF remained statistically insignificant compared to high-flux HD (0.84; 95 % CI 0.46–1.53), while patients on high-volume oHDF showed a marked and significantly lower HR (0.29; 95 % CI 0.13–0.68) than patients on high-flux HD in baseline model. While this effect failed to reach significance in the time-dependent model (HR 0.477; 95 % CI 0.196–1.161), possibly due to an inadequate sample size here, the consistency of results in both models supports the robustness of the findings. After switching from high-flux hemodialysis to oHDF, mean hemoglobin and albumin levels did not change significantly. Mean erythropoietin resistance index (ERI) and erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) consumption decreased significantly (p = 0.02, p = 0.03, respectively).

Conclusions

The median substitution volume used in these three countries for post-dilutional oHDF is 20.4 L. oHDF is associated with significant reductions in ERI and ESA consumption. Only high-volume oHDF is associated with improved survival compared to high-flux hemodialysis.

Keywords

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) Survival High-volume Hemodialysis (HD) Convective volume Anemia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following staff for their indispensable support: Želina Džafić, Sanja Kozlik, Predrag Vranić, Gabriela Moljk, Nenad Petković, Koviljka Bogićević, Gordana Žole, Ljubomir Vuković, Marija Bojić, Siniša Kandić, Vesna Tovilović, Nusret Mehmedović Vesna Stefanović, Vasilije Tomanoski, Stevan Pavlović, Nikola Lazić, Čedomir Čućković, Vekoslav Mitrović, Andrej Čufer, Natalija Kunc Rešek, Živojin Stevanović and Vesna Žitnik. Special thanks go to Prof. Rudo Niemeijer from Niemeijer Consult, The Netherlands for his invaluable support to this project.

Conflict of interest

All authors are full-time employees of Fresenius Medical Care and may hold company stock options.

Reference List

  1. 1.
    Canaud B, Bowry SK (2013) Emerging clinical evidence on online hemodiafiltration: does volume of ultrafiltration matter? Blood Purif 35:55–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowry SK, Canaud B (2013) Achieving high convective volumes in on-line hemodiafiltration. Blood Purif 35:23–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canaud B, Granger A, Chenine-Khoualef L, Patrier L, Morena M, Leray-Moragués H (2012) On-line hemodialysis monitoring: new tools for improving safety, tolerance and efficacy. In: Azar AT (ed) Modeling and control of dialysis systems: biofeedback systems and soft computing techniques of dialysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 775–809Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sichart JM, Moeller S (2011) Utilization of hemodiafiltration as treatment modality in renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients—a global perspective. Contrib Nephrol 175:163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stopper A, Scatizzi L, Klinkner G, Boccato C, Grassmann A, Marcelli D (2011) Adopting on-line hemodiafiltration as standard therapy in EMEA NephroCare Centers. Contrib Nephrol 175:152–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canaud B, Bosc JY, Leray-Moragues H et al (2000) On-line haemodiafiltration. Safety and efficacy in long-term clinical practice. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15(Suppl 1):60–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ledebo I (1999) On-line hemodiafiltration: technique and therapy. Adv Ren Replace Ther 6:195–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ledebo I (2002) On-line preparation of solutions for dialysis: practical aspects versus safety and regulations. J Am Soc Nephrol 13(Suppl 1):S78–S83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Penne EL, van der Weerd NC, van den Dorpel MA et al (2010) Short-term effects of online hemodiafiltration on phosphate control: a result from the randomized controlled Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST). Am J Kidney Dis 55:77–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davenport A, Gardner C, Delaney M (2010) The effect of dialysis modality on phosphate control: haemodialysis compared to haemodiafiltration. The Pan Thames Renal Audit. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:897–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minutolo R, Bellizzi V, Cioffi M et al (2002) Postdialytic rebound of serum phosphorus: pathogenetic and clinical insights. J Am Soc Nephrol 13:1046–1054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lornoy W, Becaus I, Billiouw JM, Sierens L, Van MP, D’Haenens P (2000) On-line haemodiafiltration. Remarkable removal of beta2-microglobulin. Long-term clinical observations. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15(Suppl 1):49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beerenhout CH, Luik AJ, Jeuken-Mertens SG et al (2005) Pre-dilution on-line haemofiltration vs low-flux haemodialysis: a randomized prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 20:1155–1163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mandolfo S, Borlandelli S, Imbasciati E (2006) Leptin and beta2-microglobulin kinetics with three different dialysis modalities. Int J Artif Organs 29:949–955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Francisco RC, Aloha M, Ramon PS (2012) Effects of high-efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis on serum phosphorus and cardiac structure and function in patients with end-stage renal disease. Int Urol Nephrol. doi: 10.1007/s11255-012-0324-8
  16. 16.
    Donauer J, Schweiger C, Rumberger B, Krumme B, Bohler J (2003) Reduction of hypotensive side effects during online-haemodiafiltration and low temperature haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 18:1616–1622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S et al (2010) Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 21:1798–1807PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carracedo J, Merino A, Nogueras S et al (2006) On-line hemodiafiltration reduces the proinflammatory CD14+ CD16+ monocyte-derived dendritic cells: a prospective, crossover study. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2315–2321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gatti E, Ronco C (2011) Seeking an optimal renal replacement therapy for the chronic kidney disease epidemic: the case for on-line hemodiafiltration. Contrib Nephrol 175:170–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vilar E, Fry AC, Wellsted D, Tattersall JE, Greenwood RN, Farrington K (2009) Long-term outcomes in online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: a comparative analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1944–1953PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    US Renal Data System (2010) Excerpts from the USRDS 2009 annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 55(suppl 1):S1–S420Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ok E, Asci G, Toz H et al (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 28:192–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Penne EL, Blankestijn PJ, Bots ML et al (2005) Effect of increased convective clearance by on-line hemodiafiltration on all cause and cardiovascular mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients—the Dutch CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST): rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN38365125]. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 6:8PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 23:2337–2343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jirka T, Cesare S, Di BA et al (2006) Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis. Kidney Int 70:1524–1525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 69:2087–2093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M et al (2013) High-efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 24:487–497PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Harnett JD, Kent GM, Murray DC, Barre PE (1996) The impact of anemia on cardiomyopathy, morbidity, and mortality in end-stage renal disease. Am J Kidney Dis 28:53–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shlipak MG, Fried LF, Cushman M et al (2005) Cardiovascular mortality risk in chronic kidney disease: comparison of traditional and novel risk factors. JAMA 293:1737–1745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marcelli D, Moscardo V, Steil H et al (2002) Data management and quality assurance for dialysis network. Contrib Nephrol 137:293–299Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bender R (2005) Number needed to treat (NNT). In: Armitage P, Colon T (eds) Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 752–761Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK et al (2002) Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 347:2010–2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cheung AK, Levin NW, Greene T et al (2003) Effects of high-flux hemodialysis on clinical outcomes: results of the HEMO study. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:3251–3263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Locatelli F, Martin-Malo A, Hannedouche T et al (2009) Effect of membrane permeability on survival of hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 20:645–654PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Panichi V, Tetta C (2011) On-line hemodiafiltration in the large RISCAVID study. Contrib Nephrol 175:117–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grooteman MP, van den Dorpel MA, Bots ML et al (2012) Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:1087–1096PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tattersall JE, Ward RA (2013) Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs530
  38. 38.
    Maduell F, del PC, Garcia H et al (1999) Change from conventional haemodiafiltration to on-line haemodiafiltration. Nephrol Dial Transplant 14:1202–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bonforte G, Grillo P, Zerbi S, Surian M (2002) Improvement of anemia in hemodialysis patients treated by hemodiafiltration with high-volume on-line-prepared substitution fluid. Blood Purif 20:357–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lin CL, Huang CC, Yu CC et al (2002) Improved iron utilization and reduced erythropoietin resistance by on-line hemodiafiltration. Blood Purif 20:349–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wizemann V, Lotz C, Techert F, Uthoff S (2000) On-line haemodiafiltration versus low-flux haemodialysis. A prospective randomized study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15(Suppl 1):43–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Goran Imamović
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Rajko Hrvačević
    • 2
  • Sonja Kapun
    • 3
  • Daniele Marcelli
    • 4
  • Inga Bayh
    • 4
  • Aileen Grassmann
    • 4
  • Laura Scatizzi
    • 4
  • Jelena Maslovarić
    • 2
  • Bernard Canaud
    • 4
  1. 1.Fresenius Medical CareSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.Fresenius Medical CareBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Fresenius Medical CareZrečeSlovenia
  4. 4.Medical Board EMEALAFresenius Medical CareBad HomburgGermany
  5. 5.Dijalizni centar ZvornikZvornikBosnia and Herzegovina

Personalised recommendations