Effect of online hemodiafiltration compared with hemodialysis on quality of life in patients with ESRD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

High-Volume Hemodiafiltration Versus High-Flux Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review for the Clinician

Background: End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) management presents a significant challenge, with increasing patient burden, escalating costs, and unmet needs in improving survival and quality of life. High-volume hemodiafiltration has been found to offer enhanced solute clearance, improved inflammatory marker profiles, and better patient-centered outcomes in multiple trials compared with high-flux hemodialysis. Recent data also confirm a survival advantage compared to standard high-flux hemodialysis. Methods: We compiled a narrative review for the clinician illustrating evidence supporting the comparative performance of high-volume hemodiafiltration with conventional high-flux hemodialysis in ESKD management. Data on intermediary outcomes including biochemical and clinical benefits, as well as patient-centered outcomes and all-cause and cardiovascular death data from prospective randomized trials, their meta-analyses, and real-world cohort studies were reviewed and summarized. Results: Randomized studies in adults have found that high-volume hemodiafiltration demonstrates superior outcomes, with a 23% improvement in survival rates when achieving convective volumes ≥23 L/session, enhanced removal of uremic toxins, reduced inflammation, and better patient-reported outcomes. Cohort studies in pediatric populations find associations with improvements in growth, cognitive development, and cardiovascular health. Hemodiafiltration appears to be cost-effective when accounting for extended life expectancy and improved quality of life, although the existing data are limited to European geographies. Conclusions: Hemodiafiltration offers enhanced survival, a reduced treatment burden, and improved quality of life for ESKD patients. Given the existing data of superiority versus high-flux hemodialysis, it is plausible that hemodiafiltration will become the standard of care.

Effect of online hemodiafiltration on quality of life, fatigue and recovery time: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effect of bicarbonate hemodialysis and HDF on quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and time to recovery in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Searches were run on January 2024 and updated on 3 March 2024 in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE (1985 to present); Ovid EMBASE (1985 to present); Cochrane Library (Wiley); PubMed (1985 to present). Ten articles were fully assessed for eligibility and included in the investigation. Compared to HD, online HDF had a pooled MD of the mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36 of 0.98 (95% CI - 0.92, 2.87; P = 0.31). and of the physical component score (PCS) of 0.08 (95% CI - 1.32, 1.48; P = 0.91). No significant heterogeneity was observed (Chi2 = 4.85; I2 = 38%; P = 0.18 and Chi2 = 3.85; I2 = 22%; P = 0.28, respectively). Studies that compared the QoL assessed through the Kidney Disease Questionnaire or KDQOL-SF and show that HDF does not improve QoL when compared with HD, in most studies. In five out of seven studies, HDF was not significantly more effective than HD in improving fatigue. The length of the recovery time resulted in similar in patients receiving HDF and HD in all studies included in the present review. HDF is not more effective than HD in improving QoL and fatigue and in reducing the length of time of recovery after dialysis.

The CONVINCE randomized trial found positive effects on quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease treated with hemodiafiltration

In the CONVINCE trial, the primary analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for patients receiving high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) as compared with high-flux hemodialysis (HD). A secondary objective was to evaluate effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); assessed in eight domains (physical function, cognitive function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain interference, social participation) applying instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) before randomization and every three months thereafter. In total 1360 adults with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, eligible to receive high-flux HDF (23 liters or more), were randomized (1:1); 84% response rate to all questionnaires. Both groups reported a continuous deterioration in all HRQoL domains. Overall, raw score changes from baseline were more favorable in the HDF group, resulting in a significant omnibus test after a median observation period of 30 months. Most relevant single raw score differences were reported for cognitive function. Patients receiving HDF reported a decline of -0.95 units (95% confidence interval - 2.23 to +0.34) whereas HD treated patients declined by -3.90 units (-5.28 to - 2.52). A joint model, adjusted for mortality differences, utilizing all quarterly assessments, identified a significantly slower HRQoL decline in physical function, cognitive function, pain interference, and social participation for the HDF group. Their physical health summary score declined -0.46 units/year slower compared to the HD group. Thus, the CONVINCE trial showed a beneficial effect of high-dose hemodiafiltration for survival as well as a moderate positive effect on patients' quality of life, most pronounced with respect to their cognitive function. REGISTRATION: NTR7138 on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Effect of hemodiafiltration and hemodialysis on mortality of patients with end-stage kidney disease: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comparing Hemodiafiltration (HDF) with conventional hemodialysis (HD) on the effectiveness of HDF for mortality in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have yielded contrasting results. Importantly, we sought to compile the available information to provide the most up-to-date and reliable evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for RCTs up to January 14, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze relevant data and evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Our study involved 10 randomized controlled trials with 4654 chronic dialysis patients. Compared to hemodialysis, hemodiafiltration demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.72-0.99, P = 0.04) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.90, P = 0.002). However, it did not reduce the rate of sudden death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64-1.34, P = 0.68) and infection-related mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.47-1.03, P = 0.07). A subgroup analysis revealed that HDF demonstrated superiority over high-flux hemodialysis in terms of all-cause mortality, while not over low-flux hemodialysis (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, P = 0.01; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77-1.12, P = 0.44, respectively). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis for convection volume found that hemodiafiltration with a convection volume of 22 L or more reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88, P = 0.0002, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.94, P = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In maintenance hemodialysis patients, hemodiafiltration can reduce mortality compared to conventional hemodialysis. Furthermore, this effect is more pronounced in HDF with high convection volume.

Management of Chronic Heart Failure in Dialysis Patients: A Challenging but Rewarding Path

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a common complication and cause of death in dialysis patients. Although several clinical guidelines and expert consensus on heart failure (HF) in the general population have been issued in China and abroad, due to abnormal renal function or even no residual renal function (RRF) in dialysis patients, the high number of chronic complications, as well as the specificity, variability, and limitations of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatments, there are significant differences between dialysis patients and the general population in terms of the treatment and management of HF. The current studies are not relevant to all dialysis-combined HF populations, and there is an urgent need for high-quality studies on managing HF in dialysis patients to guide and standardize treatment. After reviewing the existing guidelines and literature, we focused on the staging and diagnosis of HF, management of risk factors, pharmacotherapy, and dialysis treatment in patients on dialysis. Based on evidence-based medicine and clinical trial data, this report reflects new perspectives and future trends in the diagnosis and treatment of HF in dialysis patients, which will further enhance the clinicians' understanding of HF in dialysis patients.

Actioning the findings of hard endpoint clinical trials as they emerge in the realm of chronic kidney disease care: a review and a call to action

Fewer than half of patients treated with hemodialysis survive 5 years. Multiple therapeutics are used to address the complications of advanced chronic kidney disease but most have not been found to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical trials of treatment innovations for chronic kidney diseases and dialysis care have been suboptimal in number and quality. Recent trials are changing this trend. Practice and policy change when new evidence emerges remains frequently impeded by resource and organizational constraints and accordingly, clinical practice guidelines are updated years or decades after definitive evidence is produced. Ultimately, practice change in health systems is slow, leading to impaired uptake of effective medical interventions and lower value healthcare, although innovations in rapid guideline production are emerging. What can be done to ensure that conclusive evidence is taken up in practice, policy and healthcare funding? We use the example of the recently published hard endpoint study "Comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD" (CONVINCE) (hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis), to explain how a new trial can impact on medical knowledge and change in practices. We (i) assess how the trial can be placed in the context of the totality of the evidence, (ii) define whether or not further trials of convective dialysis therapies are still needed and (iii) examine whether the evidence for convective therapies is now ready to inform practice, policy and funding change. When looking at CONVINCE in the context of the totality of evidence, we show that it addresses dialysis quality improvement priorities and is consistent with other trials evaluating convective dialysis therapies, and that the evidence for convective dialysis therapies is now definitive. Once updated evidence for cost-effectiveness in specific healthcare settings and patient-reported outcomes become available, we should therefore determine whether or not clinical practice guidelines should recommend uptake of convective dialysis therapies routinely, and move on to evaluating other treatments.

Unveiling the Clinical Benefits of High-Volume Hemodiafiltration: Optimizing the Removal of Medium-Weight Uremic Toxins and Beyond

Dialysis treatment has improved the survival of patients with kidney failure. However, the hospitalization and mortality rates remain alarmingly high, primarily due to incomplete uremic toxin elimination. High-volume hemodiafiltration (HDF) has emerged as a promising approach that significantly improves patient outcomes by effectively eliminating medium and large uremic toxins, which explains its increasing adoption, particularly in Europe and Japan. Interest in this therapy has grown following the findings of the recently published CONVINCE study, as well as the need to understand the mechanisms behind the benefits. This comprehensive review aims to enhance the scientific understanding by explaining the underlying physiological mechanisms that contribute to the positive effects of HDF in terms of short-term benefits, like hemodynamic tolerance and cardiovascular disease. Additionally, it explores the rationale behind the medium-term clinical benefits, including phosphorus removal, the modulation of inflammation and oxidative stress, anemia management, immune response modulation, nutritional effects, the mitigation of bone disorders, neuropathy relief, and amyloidosis reduction. This review also analyzes the impact of HDF on patient-reported outcomes and mortality. Considering the importance of applying personalized uremic toxin removal strategies tailored to the unique needs of each patient, high-volume HDF appears to be the most effective treatment to date for patients with renal failure. This justifies the need to prioritize its application in clinical practice, initially focusing on the groups with the greatest potential benefits and subsequently extending its use to a larger number of patients.

Systematic review to compare the outcomes associated with the modalities of expanded hemodialysis (HDx) versus high-flux hemodialysis and/or hemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)

BACKGROUND

This systematic review was performed to identify recent published comparative evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of expanded hemodialysis (HDx) versus high-flux HD and/or hemodiafiltration (HDF) for long-term outcomes in end-stage kidney disease.

METHODS

Systematic literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Medline, Medline® Epub Ahead of Print, EconLit, Embase, and EBM reviews were searched to identify relevant publications from 2013 onwards. Eligibility criteria included clinical studies reporting mortality, hospitalizations, cardiovascular outcomes, economic evaluations, cost studies, and quality of life (QoL) studies.

RESULTS

A total of 79 relevant studies were identified with 29 prioritized for detailed analysis; four compared HDx to HD, one compared HDF and HDx, and 24 compared HDF with HD. A total of 13 randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based studies were identified; 11 compared HDF with HD, one compared HDx with HD, and one compared HDF with HDx. Follow-up duration ranged from 16 weeks to 7 years for HDF studies and from 12 weeks to 1 year for HDx studies. HDF showed significant improvements in mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hospitalizations, and QoL versus high-flux HD. One study reported mortality outcomes for HDx and found no difference versus HDF. QoL benefits with HDx were reported in a small number of studies.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of HDF is supported by a robust evidence base that includes several RCTs. While HDx may offer benefits over high-flux HD, long-term studies are required to compare HDx with online high volume HDF.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022301009.

Hemodiafiltration: Technical and Medical Insights

Despite the significant medical and technical improvements in the field of dialytic renal replacement modalities, morbidity and mortality are excessively high among patients with end-stage kidney disease, and most interventional studies yielded disappointing results. Hemodiafiltration, a dialysis method that was implemented in clinics many years ago and that combines the two main principles of hemodialysis and hemofiltration-diffusion and convection-has had a positive impact on mortality rates, especially when delivered in a high-volume mode as a surrogate for a high convective dose. The achievement of high substitution volumes during dialysis treatments does not only depend on patient characteristics but also on the dialyzer (membrane) and the adequately equipped hemodiafiltration machine. The present review article summarizes the technical aspects of online hemodiafiltration and discusses present and ongoing clinical studies with regards to hard clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Post-dialysis fatigue: Comparison of bicarbonate hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration

INTRODUCTION

The present cross-sectional study aimed to compare the prevalence, the characteristics of post-dialysis fatigue and the length of recovery time after hemodialysis in prevalent end-stage renal disease patients (ESRD) receiving bicarbonate hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF).

METHODS

Patients were suffering from post-dialysis fatigue if they spontaneously offered this complaint when asked the open-ended question: "Do you feel fatigued after dialysis?". Moreover, each patient was invited to rate the intensity, duration, and frequency of post-dialysis fatigue from 1 to 5. In order to assess RECOVERY TIME AFTER DIALYSIS, patients were invited to answer to the following single open-ended question: "How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?"

FINDINGS

We included 335 patients: 252 received HD and 83 received HDF. Post-dialysis fatigue was present in 204 patients (60.9%). Prevalence of post-dialysis fatigue did not differ significantly between patients on HD (62.3%) and on HDF (56.6%; p = 0.430). Median recovery time after dialysis was 180 min [180-240] and did not differ significantly between the two subgroups (180 min [130-240] and 240 min [120-332] p = 0.671, respectively). Median post-dialysis fatigue intensity, duration, and frequency were 3 [1-5], 3 [1-5], and 4 [1-5] and did not differ significantly between patients on HD and on HDF. At the multivariate analysis, age, ADL and hemoglobin levels were the independent predictors of the HDF treatment.

DISCUSSION

Prevalence and characteristics of post-dialysis fatigue do not differ significantly between patients receiving bicarbonate HD or HDF.

Executive summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 clinical practice guideline for optimal hemodialysis treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists' support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient's condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There are also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

Clinical performance, intermediate and long-term outcomes of high-volume hemodiafiltration in patients with kidney failure

Hemodiafiltration (HDF), in which both convective and diffusion methods are combined, yields an increased overall solute clearance compared with hemodialysis (HD), specifically for medium and larger molecular weight uremic toxins. Due to uncertainty in the treatment effects, the nephrology community still perceives the implementation of HDF and the achievement of high convective volume as complex. In this article, we review practical aspects of the implementation of HDF that can effectively deliver a high-volume HDF therapy and assure clinical performance to most patients. We also present an overview of the impact of high-volume HDF (compared to HD) on a series of relevant biochemical, patient-reported, and clinical outcomes, including uremic toxin removal, phosphate, Inflammation and oxidative stress, hemodynamic stability, cardiac outcomes, nutritional effects, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality.

Patient-reported outcomes and patient voices

Online hemodiafilration (HDF) treatment may be associated with better quality of life due to improved clearance of middle-molecular-weight uremic toxins and hemodynamic stability in dialysis patients, in addition to better overall survival.

Hemodiafiltration Improves Low Levels of Health-Related Quality Of Life (Qol) and Nutritional Conditions of Hemodialysis Patients

We compared the effects on the nutritional condition and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of the treatment of patients with on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) and conventional hemodialysis (CHD) using a superflux dialyzer. In total, 47 maintenance (M) HD patients were treated by CHD with a high-flux dialyzer for the first 4 months (1st CHD) and were then switched to predilution OL-HDF for the next 4 months (OL-HDF), after which CHD was resumed for the last 4 months (2nd CHD). We assessed the clinical parameters, fat mass value, muscle mass value, and HR-QoL. In patients with low serum albumin levels, these levels significantly (p < 0.05) increased in the OL-HDF period. Moreover, the fat mass values significantly (p < 0.05) increased in patients with decreased fat mass values in the OL-HDF period. Although there was no significant difference in the patients with higher scores of physical functioning, role physical, vitality, and social functioning, patients with lower scores in the 1st CHD period had significantly increased (p < 0.05) in the OL-HDF period. In this crossover study, we revealed that OL-HDF treatment significantly improved the nutritional conditions and HR-QoL scores compared with the improvement observed after CHD with a superflux dialyzer, especially for maintenance hemodialysis patients with malnutrition and a low QoL.

CONVINCE in the context of existing evidence on haemodiafiltration

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a greater removal of larger solutes and protein-bound compounds than conventional high-flux haemodialysis (HD). There are indications that the patients receiving the highest convection volumes of HDF result in an improved survival compared with HD. However, the comparative efficacy of HDF vs HD remains unproven. Here we provide a comparative account of the methodology and aims of ‘the comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD’ (CONVINCE) study in the context of the totality of evidence and how this study will contribute to reaching a higher level of certainty regarding the comparative efficacy of HDF vs HD in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis is a heterogeneous syndrome: we should treat it like one

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis, commonly labeled end-stage kidney disease or chronic kidney disease stage 5D, is a heterogeneous syndrome -a key reason that may explain why: treating advanced kidney dysfunction is challenging and many clinical trials involving patients on dialysis have failed, thus far. Treatment with dialytic techniques - of which maintenance thrice-weekly hemodialysis is most commonly used - is broadly named kidney 'replacement' therapy, a term that casts the perception of a priori abandonment of intrinsic kidney function and subsumes patients into a single, homogeneous group.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with advanced kidney failure necessitating dialytic therapy may have ongoing endogenous kidney function, and differ in their clinical manifestations and needs. Different terminology, for example, kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) with stages of progressive severity could better capture the range of phenotypes of patients who require kidney 'assistance' therapy.

SUMMARY

Classifying patients with KDRD based on objective, quantitative levels of endogenous kidney function, as well as patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, would facilitate hemodialysis prescriptions tailored to level of kidney dysfunction, clinical needs, and personal priorities. Such classification would encourage clinicians to move toward personalized, physiological, and adaptive approach to hemodialysis therapy.

Effect of Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis on Cognitive Function Among Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: A Multicenter Study

Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) and dementia are common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis. Their cause is multifactorial. Our study is first to compare the impact of hemodialysis (HD) and online hemodiafiltration (HDF) on patients’ cognitive outcomes.

Methods: This was a cross sectional, multicenter cohort study. Adult ESRD patients aged >18 years on regular high flux HD or online HDF were recruited in the study. Clinical, laboratory, daily activities and cognitive functions assessment were assessed in all the involved individuals.

Results: A total of 241 patients were successfully recruited into the study: 164 treated with high flux HD and 77 treated with HDF. Hypertension and diabetes were the commonest associated comorbidities. 85.9% of patients were functionally independent with no significant difference between those on HD versus HDF. 81.3% of our patients showed different degrees of CI. HDF has no superiority in the improvement of cognitive functions. Age, vitamin D level and haemoglobin (Hb) were the most independent predictors of cognitive function impairment among HD patients.

Conclusions: Cognitive function impairment is a common problem in hemodialysis and is associated with multiple risk factors. HDF showed no beneficial effect over HD. There is no superiority of online HDF versus high flux HD in improving cognitive functions.

Executive Summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for Optimal Hemodialysis Treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists’ support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient’s condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There is also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

Why and how high volume hemodiafiltration may reduce cardiovascular mortality in stage 5 chronic kidney disease dialysis patients? A comprehensive literature review on mechanisms involved

Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is an established renal replacement modality for patients with end stage chronic kidney disease that is now gaining rapid clinical acceptance worldwide. Currently, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that treatment with HDF is associated with better outcomes and reduced cardiovascular mortality for dialysis patients. In this comprehensive review, we provide an update on the potential mechanisms which may improve survival in HDF treated patients. The strongest evidence is for better hemodynamic stability and reduced endothelial dysfunction associated with HDF treatments. Clinically, this is marked by a reduced incidence of intradialytic hypotensive episodes, with a better hemodynamic response to ultrafiltration, mediated by an increase in total peripheral vascular resistance and extra-vascular fluid recruitment, most likely driven by the negative thermal balance associated with online HDF therapy. In addition, endothelial function appears to be improved due to a combination of a reduction of the inflammatory and oxidative stress complex syndrome and exposure to circulating cardiovascular uremic toxins. Reports of reversed cardiovascular remodeling effects with HDF may be confounded by volume and blood pressure management, which are strongly linked to center clinical practices. Currently, treatment with HDF appears to improve the survival of dialysis patients predominantly due to a reduction in their cardiovascular burden, and this reduction is linked to the sessional convection volume exchanged.

Effect of hemodiafiltration on measured physical activity: primary results of the HDFIT randomized controlled trial

Background

Dialysis patients are typically inactive and their physical activity (PA) decreases over time. Uremic toxicity has been suggested as a potential causal factor of low PA in dialysis patients. Post-dilution high-volume online hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides greater higher molecular weight removal and studies suggest better clinical/patient-reported outcomes compared with hemodialysis (HD).

Methods

HDFIT was a randomized controlled trial at 13 clinics in Brazil that aimed to investigate the effects of HDF on measured PA (step counts) as a primary outcome. Stable HD patients (vintage 3–24 months) were randomized to receive HDF or high-flux HD. Treatment effect of HDF on the primary outcome from baseline to 3 and 6 months was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model.

Results

We randomized 195 patients (HDF 97; HD 98) between August 2016 and October 2017. Despite the achievement of a high convective volume in the majority of sessions and a positive impact on solute removal, the treatment effect HDF on the primary outcome was +538 [95% confidence interval (CI) −330 to 1407] steps/24 h after dialysis compared with HD, and was not statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the observed size of the treatment effect was modest and driven by steps taken between 1.5 and 24.0 h after dialysis, in particular between 20 and 24 h (+197 steps; 95% CI −95 to 488).

Conclusions

HDF did not have a statistically significant treatment effect on PA 24 h following dialysis, albeit effect sizes may be clinically meaningful and deserve further investigation.

Comparisons of fatigue between dialysis modalities: A cross-sectional study

Background

Fatigue is one of the most frequent complications in dialyzed patients and is associated with poorer patient outcomes. Multiple factors are reported to be associated with fatigue development. Of them, the impacts of dialysis modalities remain unknown.

Methods

A total of 194 dialysis patients (mean age, 61±11 years; 134 males; modalities included hemodialysis (HD) in 26, online hemodiafiltration (HDF) in 74, peritoneal dialysis (PD) in 68, and combined therapy with PD and HD in 26 cases) were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Fatigue was assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and our original scale of fatigue, and depression was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition (BDI-II). Our original scale of fatigue was administered both on dialysis and dialysis-free days to patients on HD and online HDF.

Results

The scores of the POMS, VAS, and our original scale were weakly but significantly inter-related (rho = 0.58, P<0.01; rho = 0.47, P<0.01, and rho = 0.42, P<0.01 between POMS and VAS, POMS and our original scale for fatigue, and VAS and our original scale for fatigue, respectively). The scores of these 3 tests showed no significant differences among the 4 modalities. On multivariate analysis, age, body mass index, creatinine, and employment status were associated with the presence or severity of fatigue, whereas dialysis modality was not. A similar result was obtained in 122 patients without depression. The prevalence of fatigue by our original scale was significantly lower on dialysis-free days than on dialysis days in patients on HD and online HDF.

Conclusions

The results suggest that there is no significant association between different dialysis modalities including HD, online HDF, PD and combined therapy with PD and HD and the prevalence or severity of fatigue.

Serum level of high mobility group box protein-1 and prognosis of patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

To investigate serum level of high mobility group box protein-1 (HMGB1) and prognosis of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD).This prospective cohort observational study included a total of 253 ESRD patients who came to our hospital for HD or PD from February 2013 to February 2015. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method was used to detect the serum level of HMGB1, interleukin (IL-6), IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). The kidney disease quality of life short form (KDQOL-SF) and kidney disease targeted area (KDTA) was applied for evaluating the quality of life. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curve was performed for survival time.Serum level of HMGB1 in patients on HD was higher than PD. HMGB1 levels were gradually decreased with the treatment of HD or PD. Furthermore, HMGB1 was positively correlated with IL-6 and TNF-α. Moreover, patients with higher HMGB1 had more complications than patients with lower HMGB1, but there was no difference for the survival rate. In addition, the quality of life was associated with different dialysis methods.The serum level of HMGB1 and prognosis of ESRD patients was associated with different dialysis methods.

Effects of online hemodiafiltration on anemia and nutritional status in chronic hemodialysis patients

Background

Online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) offers considerable advantages in clearance of molecules of various sizes. However, evidence of clinical effects of OL-HDF is scarce in Korea. In this study, we investigated changes in laboratory values over more than 12 months after switching to OL-HDF.

Methods

Adult patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis (HD) were prospectively enrolled in a K-cohort (CRIS no. KCT0003281) from 6 tertiary hospitals in South Korea. We recruited 435 patients, 339 of whom were on HD at enrollment. One hundred eighty-two patients were followed for more than 24 months. Among them, 44 were switched to OL-HDF for more than 12 months without conversion to HD. We used a paired t test to compare baseline and 24-month follow-up results.

Results

The mean age of the subjects was 61.2 ± 12.2 years, and 62.6% were male. The baseline hemoglobin level was not significantly different between HD and OL-HDF group (10.61 ± 1.15 vs. 10.46 ± 1.03 g/dL, P = 0.437). However, the baseline serum protein and albumin levels were significantly lower in the OL-HDF group (6.82 ± 0.49 vs. 6.59 ± 0.48 g/dL, P = 0.006; 3.93 ± 0.28 vs. 3.73 ± 0.29 g/dL, P < 0.001). In patients switched to OL-HDF, levels of hemoglobin and serum albumin significantly increased (10.46 ± 1.03 vs. 11.08 ± 0.82 g/dL, P = 0.001; 3.73 ± 0.29 vs. 3.87 ± 0.30 g/dL, P = 0.001). The normalized protein catabolic rate decreased after 24 months, but the change was not significant (1.07 ± 0.25 vs. 1.03 ± 0.21 g/kg/day, P = 0.433). Although the dose of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was lower in patients who converted to HDF, it was not significantly different (-115.7 ± 189.7 vs. -170.5 ± 257.1 P = 0.206).

Conclusion

OL-HDF treatment over more than 12 months was associated with no harmful effects on anemia and nutritional status.

Development of a framework for minimum and optimal safety and quality standards for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Substantial heterogeneity in practice patterns around the world has resulted in wide variations in the quality and type of dialysis care delivered. This is particularly so in countries without universal standards of care and governmental (or other organizational) oversight. Most high-income countries have developed such oversight based on documentation of adherence to standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Many low- and lower-middle-income countries have no or only limited organized oversight systems to ensure that care is safe and effective. The implementation and oversight of basic standards of care requires sufficient infrastructure and appropriate workforce and financial resources to support the basic levels of care and safety practices. It is important to understand how these standards then can be reasonably adapted and applied in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Quality of life, pain and anxiety in patients with nephrostomy tubes

Objective:

to evaluate the impact on the quality of life as well as anxiety and pain in patients with nephrostomy tubes.

Method:

this is a longitudinal descriptive study performed on a sample of n=150 patients. To evaluate the quality of life, the EuroQol-5D questionnaire was used; anxiety was quantified by the Beck Anxiety Inventory; to study pain, a visual analogue scale was employed.

Results:

statistically significant differences were found in the quality of life, with its worsening (r = 0.51; p <0.01) when evaluated at the first tube replacement. Patients presented mild to moderate anxiety before the procedure, which was reduced at the first tube replacement, although this difference was not significant (r = 0.028, p = 0.393). Finally, the degree of pain was also significantly reduced (r = 0.13, p<0.01) after six weeks. As for gender, women presented the worst values ​​in the three variables studied (worse quality of life and greater anxiety and pain).

Conclusions:

nephrostomy tubes have a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life. During the time they live with these tubes, patients have mild to moderate pain and anxiety.