Medical Insights of Hemodiafiltration: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 4 by Jessie Wu.

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. 

  • hemodiafiltration
  • dialysis
  • treatment

1. Necessity of Advanced Treatment Options for End-Stage Kidney DiseaseKD Patients to Improve Outcomes

Advances in technical and medical treatment options are of paramount importance for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) based on their high morbidity and mortality rates [1][2][3][4][5]. In a recent study with ESKD patients treated with hemodiafiltration (HDF), more than 90% suffered from metabolism and nutrition disorders, including type 2 diabetes mellitus [6]. Vascular disorders, such as hypertension, were reported for approximately 85% of patients, and cardiac disorders/coronary artery disease were reported for approximately 65% of patients. These comorbidities are both a sequel and an origin of ESKD. According to investigators, hypertensive and large vessel diseases (48%) and diabetes mellitus (21%) are the two leading root causes of ESKD.
In this context, cardiovascular complications are a leading cause of death in ESKD patients [3][7][8][9][10][11]. Male patients with ESKD on hemodialysis have an overall incidence of myocardial infarction of approximately 2.13 per 100 patient-years [12], which is approximately 3.5 times the risk of a comparable male population of >65 years old and not on hemodialysis [13]. The overall mortality rate in this population is approximately 6 times higher than in the general population [14]. This risk is also driven by vascular calcification caused by hypercalcemia and a dysregulation of the parathyroid hormone [15][16]. Moreover, diabetes mellitus and protein–energy wasting (PEW) are major problems among dialysis patients and major predictors of morbidity and mortality [17][18][19][20][21]. One major component of PEW is anorexia, which affects up to 50% of ESKD patients [22]. Anorexia may be caused by underdialysis, which, in turn, affects taste. A randomized study of 30 patients showed that an adaptation of the dialysis dose from a low initial Kt/V of 0.82 ± 0.19 to 1.32 ± 0.21 increased protein uptake (estimated by the protein catabolic rate, or PCR) by 26%, whereas the PCR remained constant in the control group with the unchanged dialysis procedure [23]. It is, thus, important to achieve the recommended dialysis target doses to avoid the PEW syndrome, e.g., by using highly efficient dialysis modalities. In addition to protein intake, protein loss should be considered, as the sieving properties of dialyzers may contribute to the PEW syndrome if they leak elevated amounts of albumin [6][24]. Thus, efficient dialysis may alleviate comorbidities associated with negative clinical outcomes in ESKD patients. This should include the elimination of middle- and large-sized uremic toxins, such as β2-microglobulin or inflammatory cytokines, and prevent the loss of essential proteins, such as albumin.

2. Hemodiafiltration vs. Other Modalities: Impact on Performances as Short-Term Surrogate Marker of Efficiency

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) has become the renal replacement therapy of choice in Europe and in Asian countries due to its superior performance vs. HD, i.e., the clearance and removal of uremic toxins, improved intradialytic hemodynamic stability, including fewer periods with cardiac and vascular stresses, and reduced inflammation [25][26][27][28][29]. The present section compares the performance characteristics of HDF with those of other treatment modalities.
Superior performance originates from combining the physical principles of diffusion known from HD and convection [30][31][32]. Online HDF outperforms low-flux HD in the removal of middle molecular weight uremic toxins, such as β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, and leptin [33][34][35][36]. For β2-microglobulin, however, high-flux HD may achieve comparable results as online HDF [37][38]. Furthermore, HDx (expanded HD) with medium cut-off (MCO) membranes and forced internal filtration by design has been described as an additional treatment modality. MCO membranes may achieve nominally similar solute clearances, and they possess good removal capacities for molecules up to approximately 50 kDa, with an albumin loss of below 5 g per HD session [39][40]. In a large survey among 71 Italian nephrologists, four questions were dedicated to MCO membranes [41]. Using the Delphi method of sequential questionnaires and defining a consensus as a level of agreement of ≥66%, the experts agreed that MCO membranes were associated with reduced systemic inflammation, improvement of dialysis-related anemia, better clearance for middle-to-high molecular weight uremic toxins, and improved treatment hemodynamics. However, the experts did not see a consistent association between MCO membranes and reduced mortality, especially from cardiovascular causes (a borderline positive consensus of 66%).
To describe the performance and safety of different dialysis modalities, Maduell and Broseta performed a selective review of the published clinical study data [42]. As an indicator of performance, they defined a global removal score as the average removal rates of β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, and α1-acid glycoprotein minus the removal rate for albumin. Post-dilution HDF possessed the highest mean removal score, followed by HDx, which was superior to pre-dilution HDF and high-flux HD. Low-flux HD presented the lowest global removal score, which was less than half that of post-dilution HDF. When analyzing the removal rates depending on blood flow (Qb) and substitution volume, post-dilution HDF proved superior to HDx, even with low Qb and a substitution volume not smaller than 17–18 L per session [43][44][45]. Regarding safety, the authors stressed that MCO membranes must only be used in HDx and not in HDF. Here, >20 g of albumin could be lost per session, whereas dialyzers dedicated to HDF may sieve as little as <2 g [6][46]. Furthermore, in the CARTOON trial, a randomized trial comparing HDx and post-dilution HDF, the coronary calcium scores, a surrogate for cardiovascular outcomes, remained stable in the HDF group and deteriorated significantly under HDx [47][48].
Good dialysis performance could also be linked to the improvement of other complications in dialysis patients. A cross-sectional study among 82 non-diabetic dialysis patients compared the effects of HD and HDF on the insulin resistance index [49]. The study found that insulin resistance was significantly correlated with the β2-microglobulin reduction rate and HDF was associated with lower insulin resistance compared to HD. This indicates that HDF, which is generally superior in the β2-microglobulin reduction rate to standard HD, might preserve insulin sensitivity in non-diabetic patients on renal replacement therapies or improve insulin resistance in diabetic patients. Furthermore, HDF is associated with less inflammation compared to standard HD, as shown by the lower levels of CRP, interleukin 6 (IL-6), and homocysteine. This could be linked to the better elimination of some inflammatory compounds, such as advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs), which accumulate in patients with ESKD and activate monocytes to release IL-6, TNF-α, and interferon-γ [34][50][51][52][53].
In this context, it is important to note that for efficient HDF treatments, suitable high-flux dialyzers are essential to allow for strong performance throughout the complete treatment time [24][54]. Several randomized controlled trials have been performed to compare the performance of different dialyzers among post-dilution HDF [6][55][56]. The trials found higher mean β2-microglobulin reduction rates for the dialyzers with synthetic membranes (>67% over a 4 h session) compared to dialyzers with cellulose triacetate-based membranes (51%). The dialyzers with polysulfone-based membranes achieved β2-microglobulin reduction rates of >70% in all of the trials. Here, the dialyzer possessing the most hydrophilic membrane and the lowest protein fouling showed the best removal of middle-sized molecules.
A recent cross-over study in ten stable HD patients by Vanommeslaeghe et al. compared the membrane fiber patency and performance in post-dilution HDF between a cellulose-based asymmetric triacetate (ATA) dialyzer (Solacea 19H) and a polysulfone dialyzer (FX CorDiax 800) [57]. The ATA dialyzer maintained open fibers over the dialysis sessions, whereas the polysulfone dialyzer showed a declining patency towards the end of the dialysis. The performance was generally in line with the fiber patency. These results appear to contradict the trials cited above and the laboratory data [24][58], where polysulfone dialyzers were superior to cellulose-based dialyzers. However, the study by Vanommeslaeghe et al. submitted the dialyzers to a fiber-blocking stress test that is not relevant for current clinical practices in that the dose of anticoagulation was reduced to one-fourth of the regular dose. Furthermore, the polysulfone dialyzer was a predecessor to the current model with improved hydrophilicity and fiber patency [24][58].

3. Impact on Morbidity and Mortality as Hard Clinical Endpoint to Support Larger Use of Hemodiafiltration

The most current clinical evidence suggests that HDF offers better clinical outcomes regarding the survival rate of dialysis patients as compared to standard HD, especially when delivered in high-volume mode. This section summarizes the clinical evidence with regards to morbidity and mortality.
As discussed above, the addition of convection to the basic mechanism of HD (diffusion) improves the clearance of middle molecular weight solutes during online HDF. This additional correction of the uremic environment in HDF is associated with decreased cardiovascular damage and, subsequently, lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [59]. This hypothesis was tested in four large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), all of which were performed in Europe. However, none of the studies provided undisputable results to the basic question of whether HDF is superior or not [33][37][38][60][61].
In an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA), the European pooling project combined the four RCTs (N = 2793 patients) that compared HDF (N = 1400, post-dilution mode) to standard HD (N = 1393) on clinical outcomes [25]. This analysis found that there was a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 23% reduction in cardiovascular mortality when treated on HDF as compared to standard HD, which the authors classified as a substantial effect. The other causes of death, including sudden death and non-cardiac events, such as fatal infections and malignancies, were equally distributed between the HD and HDF groups. An interesting aspect of all four trials was that the actually delivered dosage of convective volume showed a considerable non-intended range caused by variations in everyday clinical practice. This fact and the patients’ given height and weight made it possible to perform post-hoc analyses on the possible associations between the convective volume standardized to body surface area (BSA) and survival outcomes. Therefore, the group of HDF patients was divided into the following three tertiles by delivered convective volume: low volume of <19 L, middle volume of 19–23 L, and high volume of >23 L per session. With respect to all-cause mortality, there was evidence of a dose–response relation. The highest delivered BSA-adjusted volume (>23 L per 1.73 m2 BSA per session) was associated with a 22% reduction in all-cause mortality and a reduction of 31% in cardiovascular mortality after an adjustment for age, gender, albumin, creatinine, history of CV diseases, and history of diabetes. These 23 L were based on the lower limit of the highest tertile in this meta-analysis. Based on these results, many subsequent publications have recommended a minimum convection volume of 23 L/1.73 m2 BSA per session for HDF treatments [25][26]). Furthermore, scaling of the ultrafiltration volume to BSA allows for the adjustment of the dialytic convective dose to a patient’s metabolic needs and the comparison of populations with various anthropometric profiles (i.e., European, Asian, or American populations).
Bernard Canaud and co-workers reached a comparable conclusion in an observational study (N = 2293) [62]. Here, the recommended convection volume was approximately 70 L per week, i.e., approximately 23 L per session, and, again, the data suggested a dose–response relation between the convective volume and the relative survival rate.
Another large observational study from Japan, among 5000 pairs of patients treated with HD or pre-dilution online HDF (the usual HDF mode in Japan), investigated the association of HD versus HDF (low and high volume) with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality [63]. In the pre-dilution mode, the substitution volume usually doubles. Thus, the high-volume HDF in the study was at about 50 L per session, and the low-volume HDF was at 25 L per session. Based on this definition, the 12-month all-cause mortality in the high-volume HDF group was significantly lower than that in the low-volume HDF group. Interestingly, when comparing the HD and high-volume HDF, the survival curves for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality diverged very fast, which suggested a rapid effect.
Recently, the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network Registry, which was started in 2002 with the aim to generate real-world evidence data for HDF and HD [64], also confirmed in a large observational study (REIN Registry) the superiority of HDF vs. HD with regards to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality [65].
In contrast, a French RCT [61], which focused on 381 elderly patients (above 65 years of age), and a newer analysis of Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Study (DOPPS) data of 8567 patients [66] did not find a significant difference in either all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between HDF and HD or between HDF patients with convective volumes below versus above 20 L per session.
Using a more detailed analysis of 2793 patients from the European pooling project, the authors investigated whether the benefits of HDF regarding cardiovascular mortality depend on the type of cardiovascular disease, i.e., cardiac cardiovascular disease, non-cardiac cardiovascular disease, or unclassified cardiovascular disease [25]. This analysis showed that the reduction in cardiovascular mortality in the HDF mode was solely explained by the cardiac part of cardiovascular mortality.
Thus, most studies found HDF, at least when delivered in high-volume mode, to be associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. This was mainly explained by a reduction in cardiovascular and, more specifically, cardiac mortality [67][68].

4. Mechanisms for Beneficial Effects of Hemodiafiltration

This evidence on the beneficial effects of HDF raises a question regarding the possible mechanisms of the observed effects on improved survival reported for HDF. In a recent review article, two groups of associated effects—direct and indirect effects—were discussed with regards to cardiovascular function and structure [30]. Regarding the direct factors, data from observational and interventional multicenter studies show a reduction in the frequency of intradialytic hypotension episodes in convective therapies, such as HDF or HF vs. HD, a better hemodynamic stability [69][70][71][72][73], and an improvement in cardiac remodeling during HDF treatments [74][75]. A better hemodynamic stability appears not to be related to the better Na+ balance achievable by HDF vs. high-flux HD [76]. Other direct effects may include the following: a reduction in chronic inflammatory states [53][74][77][78], oxidative stress [78][79][80], or an improvement of endothelial function and cardiovascular stiffness [81][82][83]. Furthermore, the direct effects can also be a reduction in the progression of atherosclerosis [78][84], sympathetic tone (nerve) activity [85], arrhythmogenicity, or the circulation of cardiotoxic uremic toxins [81][86]. Importantly, these direct effects may affect each other. Indirect effects in this context comprise a better correction of anemia [87][88], a better nutritional state [89][90], an improvement in physical activity [91][92], a better quality of life [93][94][95], and maintenance of residual kidney function [96][97]. It is highly difficult or basically impossible to separate these effects and identify a common underlying effect. It is most likely a complex of various interrelated effects that overall result in a beneficial effect on clinical endpoints. In this context, patient-related factors precluding a sufficiently high convective volume exchange may play a role. A retrospective study performed by Davenport identified low post-sessional intracellular water, low serum albumin, diabetes mellitus, and higher co-morbidity as indicators for low convective volumes. As these factors are not easily remediable, the patients affected may not be able to achieve the higher convection volume reported to be associated with improved patient survival [98].
In summary, the effects on the removal of middle molecules and large soluble molecules, inflammation, intradialytic morbidity, endothelial function, blood pressure regulation, and oxidative stress are the factors with the clearest evidence in the literature at present [30][99].

References

  1. Thurlow, J.S.; Joshi, M.; Yan, G.; Norris, K.C.; Agodoa, L.Y.; Yuan, C.M.; Nee, R. Global Epidemiology of End-Stage Kidney Disease and Disparities in Kidney Replacement Therapy. Am. J. Nephrol. 2021, 52, 98–107.
  2. Bello, A.K.; Okpechi, I.G.; Osman, M.A.; Cho, Y.; Htay, H.; Jha, V.; Wainstein, M.; Johnson, D.W. Epidemiology of Haemodialysis Outcomes. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2022, 18, 378–395.
  3. Go, A.S.; Chertow, G.M.; Fan, D.; McCulloch, C.E.; Hsu, C. Chronic Kidney Disease and the Risks of Death, Cardiovascular Events, and Hospitalization. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351, 1296–1305.
  4. Goodkin, D.A.; Bragg-Gresham, J.L.; Koenig, K.G.; Wolfe, R.A.; Akiba, T.; Andreucci, V.E.; Saito, A.; Rayner, H.C.; Kurokawa, K.; Port, F.K.; et al. Association of Comorbid Conditions and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2003, 14, 3270–3277.
  5. Robinson, B.M.; Akizawa, T.; Jager, K.J.; Kerr, P.G.; Saran, R.; Pisoni, R.L. Factors Affecting Outcomes in Patients Reaching End-Stage Kidney Disease Worldwide: Differences in Access to Renal Replacement Therapy, Modality Use, and Haemodialysis Practices. Lancet 2016, 388, 294–306.
  6. Ehlerding, G.; Ries, W.; Kempkes-Koch, M.; Ziegler, E.; Erlenkötter, A.; Zawada, A.M.; Kennedy, J.P.; Ottillinger, B.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Lang, T. Randomized Comparison of Three High-Flux Dialyzers during High-Volume Online Hemodiafiltration—The ComPERFORM Study. Clin. Kidney J. 2022, 15, 672–680.
  7. Cianciolo, G.; Donati, G.; La Manna, G.; Ferri, A.; Cuna, V.; Ubaldi, G.; Corsini, S.; Lanci, N.; Colì, L.; Stefoni, S. The Cardiovascular Burden of End-Stage Renal Disease Patients. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2010, 62, 51–66.
  8. Ahmadmehrabi, S.; Tang, W.H.W. Hemodialysis-Induced Cardiovascular Disease. Semin. Dial. 2018, 31, 258–267.
  9. Ritz, E.; Bommer, J. Cardiovascular Problems on Hemodialysis: Current Deficits and Potential Improvement. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2009, 4, S71–S78.
  10. Mavrakanas, T.A.; Charytan, D.M. Cardiovascular Complications in Chronic Dialysis Patients. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 2016, 25, 536–544.
  11. Cozzolino, M.; Mangano, M.; Stucchi, A.; Ciceri, P.; Conte, F.; Galassi, A. Cardiovascular Disease in Dialysis Patients. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2018, 33, iii28–iii34.
  12. Sánchez-Perales, C.; Vázquez-Ruiz de Castroviejo, E.; Segura-Torres, P.; Borrego-Utiel, F.; García-Cortés, M.J.; García-García, F.; Biechy-Baldan, M.M.; Gil-Cunquero, J.M.; Liébana-Cañada, A. Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Evolution of Dialysis Patients. Nefrologia 2012, 32, 597–604.
  13. gbe-bund 2019 Herzinfarkt Mortalität Morbidität und Letalität. Available online: https://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe/ergebnisse.prc_tab?fid=6770&suchstring=&query_id=&sprache=D&fund_typ=TAB&methode=&vt=&verwandte=1&page_ret=0&seite=1&p_lfd_nr=1&p_news=&p_sprachkz=D&p_uid=gast&p_aid=68501311&hlp_nr=2&p_janein=J (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  14. USRDS 2018 Volume 2: ESRD in the United States. Available online: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/strategic-plans-reports/usrds/prior-data-reports/2018 (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  15. Kurz, P.; Monier-Faugere, M.C.; Bognar, B.; Werner, E.; Roth, P.; Vlachojannis, J.; Malluche, H.H. Evidence for Abnormal Calcium Homeostasis in Patients with Adynamic Bone Disease. Kidney Int. 1994, 46, 855–861.
  16. London, G.M.; Marty, C.; Marchais, S.J.; Guerin, A.P.; Metivier, F.; de Vernejoul, M.-C. Arterial Calcifications and Bone Histomorphometry in End-Stage Renal Disease. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004, 15, 1943–1951.
  17. Fouque, D.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Kopple, J.; Cano, N.; Chauveau, P.; Cuppari, L.; Franch, H.; Guarnieri, G.; Ikizler, T.A.; Kaysen, G.; et al. A Proposed Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria for Protein-Energy Wasting in Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2008, 73, 391–398.
  18. Giorda, C.B.; Carnà, P.; Salomone, M.; Picariello, R.; Costa, G.; Tartaglino, B.; Gnavi, R. Ten-Year Comparative Analysis of Incidence, Prognosis, and Associated Factors for Dialysis and Renal Transplantation in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes versus Non-Diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2018, 55, 733–740.
  19. Owen, W.F.; Lew, N.L.; Liu, Y.; Lowrie, E.G.; Lazarus, J.M. The Urea Reduction Ratio and Serum Albumin Concentration as Predictors of Mortality in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993, 329, 1001–1006.
  20. Lowrie, E.G.; Lew, N.L. Death Risk in Hemodialysis Patients: The Predictive Value of Commonly Measured Variables and an Evaluation of Death Rate Differences Between Facilities. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 1990, 15, 458–482.
  21. Tien, K.-J.; Lin, Z.-Z.; Chio, C.-C.; Wang, J.-J.; Chu, C.-C.; Sun, Y.-M.; Kan, W.-C.; Chien, C.-C. Epidemiology and Mortality of New-Onset Diabetes after Dialysis: Taiwan National Cohort Study. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 3027–3032.
  22. Bossola, M.; Tazza, L.; Giungi, S.; Luciani, G. Anorexia in Hemodialysis Patients: An Update. Kidney Int. 2006, 70, 417–422.
  23. Lindsay, R.M.; Spanner, E.; Heidenheim, R.P.; LeFebvre, J.M.; Hodsman, A.; Baird, J.; Allison, M.E. Which Comes First, Kt/V or PCR--Chicken or Egg? Kidney Int. Suppl. 1992, 38, S32–S36.
  24. Zawada, A.M.; Lang, T.; Ottillinger, B.; Kircelli, F.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Kennedy, J.P. Impact of Hydrophilic Modification of Synthetic Dialysis Membranes on Hemocompatibility and Performance. Membranes 2022, 12, 932.
  25. Peters, S.A.E.; Bots, M.L.; Canaud, B.; Davenport, A.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; Kircelli, F.; Locatelli, F.; Maduell, F.; Morena, M.; Nubé, M.J.; et al. Haemodiafiltration and Mortality in End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: A Pooled Individual Participant Data Analysis from Four Randomized Controlled Trials. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2016, 31, 978–984.
  26. Davenport, A.; Peters, S.A.E.; Bots, M.L.; Canaud, B.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; Asci, G.; Locatelli, F.; Maduell, F.; Morena, M.; Nubé, M.J.; et al. Higher Convection Volume Exchange with Online Hemodiafiltration Is Associated with Survival Advantage for Dialysis Patients: The Effect of Adjustment for Body Size. Kidney Int. 2016, 89, 193–199.
  27. Nube, M.J. Why Is High Volume Online Post-dilution Hemodiafiltration Associated with Improved Survival? In Hemodiafiltration: Theory, Technology and Clinical Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 239–254.
  28. Canaud, B.; Blankestijn, P.J.; Davenport, A.; Bots, M.L. Reconciling and Closing the Loop Between Evidence-Based and Practice-Based Medicine: The Case for Hemodiafiltration. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2016, 68, 176–179.
  29. Daugirdas, J.T. Lower Cardiovascular Mortality with High-Volume Hemodiafiltration: A Cool Effect? Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2016, 31, 853–856.
  30. Canaud, B.; Blankestijn, P.J.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; Davenport, A. 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. Semin. Dial. 2022, 35, 117–128.
  31. Ronco, C. Hemodiafiltration: Technical and Clinical Issues. Blood Purif. 2015, 40, 2–11.
  32. Park, H.C.; Lee, Y.-K. Who Is the Winner, Pre-, Post-, or Mixed-Dilution Hemodiafiltration? Kidney Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 40, 332–334.
  33. Grooteman, M.P.C.; van den Dorpel, M.A.; Bots, M.L.; Penne, E.L.; van der Weerd, N.C.; Mazairac, A.H.A.; den Hoedt, C.H.; van der Tweel, I.; Lévesque, R.; Nubé, M.J.; et al. Effect of Online Hemodiafiltration on All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2012, 23, 1087–1096.
  34. Lin, C.-L.; Huang, C.-C.; Yu, C.-C.; Yang, H.-Y.; Chuang, F.-R.; Yang, C.-W. Reduction of Advanced Glycation End Product Levels by On-Line Hemodiafiltration in Long-Term Hemodialysis Patients. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2003, 42, 524–531.
  35. Maduell, F.; Navarro, V.; Cruz, M.C.; Torregrosa, E.; Garcia, D.; Simon, V.; Ferrero, J.A. Osteocalcin and Myoglobin Removal in On-Line Hemodiafiltration versus Low- and High-Flux Hemodialysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2002, 40, 582–589.
  36. Mandolfo, S.; Borlandelli, S.; Imbasciati, E. Leptin and Beta2-Microglobulin Kinetics with Three Different Dialysis Modalities. Int. J. Artif. Organs 2006, 29, 949–955.
  37. Maduell, F.; Moreso, F.; Pons, M.; Ramos, R.; Mora-Macià, J.; Carreras, J.; Soler, J.; Torres, F.; Campistol, J.M.; Martinez-Castelao, A.; et al. High-Efficiency Postdilution Online Hemodiafiltration Reduces All-Cause Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013, 24, 487–497.
  38. Ok, E.; Asci, G.; Toz, H.; Ok, E.S.; Kircelli, F.; Yilmaz, M.; Hur, E.; Demirci, M.S.; Demirci, C.; Duman, S.; et al. Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Online Haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) Compared with High-Flux Dialysis: Results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2013, 28, 192–202.
  39. Boschetti-de-Fierro, A.; Voigt, M.; Storr, M.; Krause, B. MCO Membranes: Enhanced Selectivity in High-Flux Class. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18448.
  40. Potier, J.; Queffeulou, G.; Bouet, J. Are All Dialyzers Compatible with the Convective Volumes Suggested for Postdilution Online Hemodiafiltration? Int. J. Artif. Organs 2016, 39, 460–470.
  41. Dellepiane, S.; Marengo, M.; D’Arezzo, M.; Donati, G.; Fabbrini, P.; Lacquaniti, A.; Ronco, C.; Cantaluppi, V. The Next Evolution of HemoDialysis EXpanded: From a Delphi Questionnaire-Based Approach to the Real Life of Italian Dialysis Units. Blood Purif. 2022, 51, 943–952.
  42. Maduell, F.; Broseta, J.J. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus Expanded Hemodialysis (HDx). Semin. Dial. 2022, 35, 436–439.
  43. Maduell, F.; Broseta, J.J.; Rodas, L.; Montagud-Marrahi, E.; Rodriguez-Espinosa, D.; Hermida, E.; Arias-Guillén, M.; Fontseré, N.; Vera, M.; Gómez, M.; et al. Comparison of Solute Removal Properties Between High-Efficient Dialysis Modalities in Low Blood Flow Rate. Ther. Apher. Dial. 2020, 24, 387–392.
  44. Maduell, F.; Broseta, J.J.; Gómez, M.; Racionero, P.; Montagud-Marrahi, E.; Rodas, L.; Arias-Guillén, M.; Fontseré, N.; Vera, M.; Rico, N. Determining Factors for Hemodiafiltration to Equal or Exceed the Performance of Expanded Hemodialysis. Artif. Organs 2020, 44, E448–E458.
  45. Kim, T.H.; Kim, S.-H.; Kim, T.Y.; Park, H.Y.; Jung, K.S.; Lee, M.H.; Jhee, J.H.; Lee, J.E.; Choi, H.Y.; Park, H.C. Removal of Large Middle Molecules via Haemodialysis with Medium Cut-off Membranes at Lower Blood Flow Rates: An Observational Prospective Study. BMC Nephrol. 2019, 21, 2.
  46. Cuvelier, C.; Tintillier, M.; Migali, G.; Van Ende, C.; Pochet, J.-M. Albumin Losses during Hemodiafiltration: All Dialyzers Are Not Created Equal—A Case Report. BMC Nephrol. 2019, 20, 392.
  47. Lee, Y.; Jang, M.-J.; Jeon, J.; Lee, J.E.; Huh, W.; Choi, B.S.; Park, C.W.; Chin, H.J.; Kang, C.L.; Kim, D.K.; et al. Cardiovascular Risk Comparison between Expanded Hemodialysis Using Theranova and Online Hemodiafiltration (CARTOON): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10807.
  48. Mitchell, C.R.; Hornig, C.; Canaud, B. 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). Semin. Dial. 2022, sdi.13130.
  49. Moon, S.J.; Lee, J.E.; Kim, J.-K.; Yoon, S.Y.; Kang, S.W.; Choi, K.H.; Ha, S.K.; Park, H.-C. The Relationship Between Hemodialysis Modality and Insulin Resistance in Non-Diabetic Hemodialysis Patients. Blood Purif. 2015, 39, 224–229.
  50. Stinghen, A.E.M.; Massy, Z.A.; Vlassara, H.; Striker, G.E.; Boullier, A. Uremic Toxicity of Advanced Glycation End Products in CKD. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2016, 27, 354–370.
  51. Imani, F.; Horii, Y.; Suthanthiran, M.; Skolnik, E.Y.; Makita, Z.; Sharma, V.; Sehajpal, P.; Vlassara, H. Advanced Glycosylation Endproduct-Specific Receptors on Human and Rat T-Lymphocytes Mediate Synthesis of Interferon Gamma: Role in Tissue Remodeling. J. Exp. Med. 1993, 178, 2165–2172.
  52. Glorieux, G.; Helling, R.; Henle, T.; Brunet, P.; Deppisch, R.; Lameire, N.; Vanholder, R. In Vitro Evidence for Immune Activating Effect of Specific AGE Structures Retained in Uremia. Kidney Int. 2004, 66, 1873–1880.
  53. den Hoedt, C.H.; Bots, M.L.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; van der Weerd, N.C.; Mazairac, A.H.A.; Penne, E.L.; Levesque, R.; ter Wee, P.M.; Nubé, M.J.; Blankestijn, P.J.; et al. Online Hemodiafiltration Reduces Systemic Inflammation Compared to Low-Flux Hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2014, 86, 423–432.
  54. Zawada, A.M.; Melchior, P.; Schall, C.; Erlenkötter, A.; Lang, T.; Keller, T.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Kennedy, J.P. Time-resolving Characterization of Molecular Weight Retention Changes among Three Synthetic High-flux Dialyzers. Artif. Organs 2022, 46, 1318–1327.
  55. Ehlerding, G.; Erlenkötter, A.; Gauly, A.; Griesshaber, B.; Kennedy, J.; Rauber, L.; Ries, W.; Schmidt-Gürtler, H.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Wagner, S.; et al. Performance and Hemocompatibility of a Novel Polysulfone Dialyzer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Kidney360 2021, 2, 937–947.
  56. Kempkes-Koch, M.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Erlenkötter, A.; Rauber, L.; Kennedy, J.; Gauly, A.; Schmidt-Gürtler, H. MO387 Clinical Performance, Hemocompatibility and Safety of a New Dialyzer with a Modified Polysulfone Membrane. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2021, 36, gfab082.0041.
  57. Vanommeslaeghe, F.; Josipovic, I.; Boone, M.; Van Biesen, W.; Eloot, S. Impact of Intradialytic Fiber Clotting on Dialyzer Extraction and Solute Removal: A Randomized Cross-over Study. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5717.
  58. Melchior, P.; Erlenkötter, A.; Zawada, A.M.; Delinski, D.; Schall, C.; Stauss-Grabo, M.; Kennedy, J.P. Complement Activation by Dialysis Membranes and Its Association with Secondary Membrane Formation and Surface Charge. Artif. Organs 2021, 45, 770–778.
  59. Penne, E.L.; Blankestijn, P.J.; Bots, M.L.; van den Dorpel, M.A.; Grooteman, M.P.; Nubé, M.J.; van der Tweel, I.; Ter Wee, P.M. The CONTRAST study group 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 . Curr. Control. Trials Cardiovasc. Med. 2005, 6, 8.
  60. Canaud, B.; Jausson, I.; Cristol, J. Clinical Tolerance of Online HDF and Impact on Morbidity and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in ESRD Patients of 65 and More Years Old. 2004. Project supported by a French National Grant from Health Ministry (PHRC national). 2004; manuscript in preparation to be submitted.
  61. Morena, M.; Jaussent, A.; Chalabi, L.; Leray-Moragues, H.; Chenine, L.; Debure, A.; Thibaudin, D.; Azzouz, L.; Patrier, L.; Maurice, F.; et al. Treatment Tolerance and Patient-Reported Outcomes Favor Online Hemodiafiltration Compared to High-Flux Hemodialysis in the Elderly. Kidney Int. 2017, 91, 1495–1509.
  62. Canaud, B.; Barbieri, C.; Marcelli, D.; Bellocchio, F.; Bowry, S.; Mari, F.; Amato, C.; Gatti, E. Optimal Convection Volume for Improving Patient Outcomes in an International Incident Dialysis Cohort Treated with Online Hemodiafiltration. Kidney Int. 2015, 88, 1108–1116.
  63. Kikuchi, K.; Hamano, T.; Wada, A.; Nakai, S.; Masakane, I. Predilution Online Hemodiafiltration Is Associated with Improved Survival Compared with Hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2019, 95, 929–938.
  64. Couchoud, C.; Stengel, B.; Landais, P.; Aldigier, J.-C.; de Cornelissen, F.; Dabot, C.; Maheut, H.; Joyeux, V.; Kessler, M.; Labeeuw, M.; et al. The Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN): A New Registry for End-Stage Renal Disease in France. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2006, 21, 411–418.
  65. Mercadal, L.; Franck, J.-E.; Metzger, M.; Urena Torres, P.; de Cornelissen, F.; Edet, S.; Béchade, C.; Vigneau, C.; Drüeke, T.; Jacquelinet, C.; et al. Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis and Survival in Patients With ESRD: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) Registry. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2016, 68, 247–255.
  66. Locatelli, F.; Karaboyas, A.; Pisoni, R.L.; Robinson, B.M.; Fort, J.; Vanholder, R.; Rayner, H.C.; Kleophas, W.; Jacobson, S.H.; Combe, C.; et al. Mortality Risk in Patients on Hemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis: A “real-World” Comparison from the DOPPS. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2018, 33, 683–689.
  67. Nubé, M.J.; Peters, S.A.E.; Blankestijn, P.J.; Canaud, B.; Davenport, A.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; Asci, G.; Locatelli, F.; Maduell, F.; Morena, M.; et al. Mortality Reduction by Post-Dilution Online-Haemodiafiltration: A Cause-Specific Analysis. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2017, 32, 548–555.
  68. Blankestijn, P.J.; Grooteman, M.P.; Nube, M.J.; Bots, M.L. Clinical Evidence on Haemodiafiltration. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2018, 33, iii53–iii58.
  69. Locatelli, F.; Altieri, P.; Andrulli, S.; Bolasco, P.; Sau, G.; Pedrini, L.A.; Basile, C.; David, S.; Feriani, M.; Montagna, G.; et al. Hemofiltration and Hemodiafiltration Reduce Intradialytic Hypotension in ESRD. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2010, 21, 1798–1807.
  70. Donauer, J.; Schweiger, C.; Rumberger, B.; Krumme, B.; Böhler, J. Reduction of Hypotensive Side Effects during Online-Haemodiafiltration and Low Temperature Haemodialysis. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2003, 18, 1616–1622.
  71. Sande, F.M.V.D.; Kooman, J.P.; Konings, C.J.; Leunissen, K.M.L. Thermal Effects and Blood Pressure Response during Postdilution Hemodiafiltration and Hemodialysis: The Effect of Amount of Replacement Fluid and Dialysate Temperature. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2001, 12, 1916–1920.
  72. Baldamus, C.A.; Ernst, W.; Fassbinder, W.; Koch, K.M. Differing Haemodynamic Stability Due to Differing Sympathetic Response: Comparison of Ultrafiltration, Haemodialysis and Haemofiltration. Proc. Eur. Dial. Transpl. Assoc. Eur. Dial. Transpl. Assoc. 1980, 17, 205–212.
  73. Baldamus, C.A.; Ernst, W.; Lysaght, M.J.; Shaldon, S.; Koch, K.M. Hemodynamics in Hemofiltration. Int. J. Artif. Organs 1983, 6, 27–31.
  74. Rodriguez, A.; Morena, M.; Bargnoux, A.-S.; Chenine, L.; Leray-Moragues, H.; Cristol, J.P.; Canaud, B. Quantitative Assessment of Sodium Mass Removal Using Ionic Dialysance and Sodium Gradient as a Proxy Tool: Comparison of High-Flux Hemodialysis versus Online Hemodiafiltration. Artif. Organs 2021, 45, E280–E292.
  75. Czifra, A.; Páll, A.; Kulcsár, J.; Barta, K.; Kertész, A.; Paragh, G.; Lőrincz, I.; Jenei, Z.; Agarwal, A.; Zarjou, A.; et al. Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration Differently Modulate Left Ventricular Diastolic Function. BMC Nephrol. 2013, 14, 76.
  76. La Milia, V.; Ravasi, C.; Carfagna, F.; Alberghini, E.; Baragetti, I.; Buzzi, L.; Ferrario, F.; Furiani, S.; Barbone, G.S.; Pontoriero, G. Sodium Removal and Plasma Tonicity Balance Are Not Different in Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration Using High-Flux Membranes. J. Nephrol. 2019, 32, 461–469.
  77. Carracedo, J.; Merino, A.; Nogueras, S.; Carretero, D.; Berdud, I.; Ramírez, R.; Tetta, C.; Rodríguez, M.; Martín-Malo, A.; Aljama, P. On-Line Hemodiafiltration Reduces the Proinflammatory CD14+CD16+ Monocyte-Derived Dendritic Cells: A Prospective, Crossover Study. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2006, 17, 2315–2321.
  78. Ağbaş, A.; Canpolat, N.; Çalışkan, S.; Yılmaz, A.; Ekmekçi, H.; Mayes, M.; Aitkenhead, H.; Schaefer, F.; Sever, L.; Shroff, R. Hemodiafiltration Is Associated with Reduced Inflammation, Oxidative Stress and Improved Endothelial Risk Profile Compared to High-Flux Hemodialysis in Children. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198320.
  79. Filiopoulos, V.; Hadjiyannakos, D.; Metaxaki, P.; Sideris, V.; Takouli, L.; Anogiati, A.; Vlassopoulos, D. Inflammation and Oxidative Stress in Patients on Hemodiafiltration. Am. J. Nephrol. 2008, 28, 949–957.
  80. Susantitaphong, P.; Siribamrungwong, M.; Jaber, B.L. Convective Therapies versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis for Chronic Kidney Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2013, 28, 2859–2874.
  81. Mostovaya, I.M.; Blankestijn, P.J.; Bots, M.L.; Covic, A.; Davenport, A.; Grooteman, M.P.C.; Hegbrant, J.; Locatelli, F.; Vanholder, R.; Nubé, M.J. Clinical Evidence on Hemodiafiltration: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. Semin. Dial. 2014, 27, 119–127.
  82. Charitaki, E.; Belman, D.; Davenport, A. Treatment with Haemodiafiltration Stabilises Vascular Stiffness (Measured by Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity) Compared to Haemodialysis. Nephron Clin. Pract. 2014, 128, 185–191.
  83. Ohtake, T.; Oka, M.; Ishioka, K.; Honda, K.; Mochida, Y.; Maesato, K.; Moriya, H.; Hidaka, S.; Kobayashi, S. Cardiovascular Protective Effects of On-Line Hemodiafiltration: Comparison with Conventional Hemodialysis. Ther. Apher. Dial. 2012, 16, 181–188.
  84. Shroff, R.; Smith, C.; Ranchin, B.; Bayazit, A.K.; Stefanidis, C.J.; Askiti, V.; Azukaitis, K.; Canpolat, N.; Ağbaş, A.; Aitkenhead, H.; et al. Effects of Hemodiafiltration versus Conventional Hemodialysis in Children with ESKD: The HDF, Heart and Height Study. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2019, 30, 678–691.
  85. Chan, C.T.; Hanly, P.; Gabor, J.; Picton, P.; Pierratos, A.; Floras, J.S. Impact of Nocturnal Hemodialysis on the Variability of Heart Rate and Duration of Hypoxemia during Sleep. Kidney Int. 2004, 65, 661–665.
  86. Nistor, I.; Palmer, S.C.; Craig, J.C.; Saglimbene, V.; Vecchio, M.; Covic, A.; Strippoli, G.F.M. Convective versus Diffusive Dialysis Therapies for Chronic Kidney Failure: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2014, 63, 954–967.
  87. Marcelli, D.; Bayh, I.; Merello, J.I.; Ponce, P.; Heaton, A.; Kircelli, F.; Chazot, C.; Di Benedetto, A.; Marelli, C.; Ladanyi, E.; et al. Dynamics of the Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agent Resistance Index in Incident Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis Patients. Kidney Int. 2016, 90, 192–202.
  88. Panichi, V.; Scatena, A.; Rosati, A.; Giusti, R.; Ferro, G.; Malagnino, E.; Capitanini, A.; Piluso, A.; Conti, P.; Bernabini, G.; et al. High-Volume Online Haemodiafiltration Improves Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent (ESA) Resistance in Comparison with Low-Flux Bicarbonate Dialysis: Results of the REDERT Study. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2015, 30, 682–689.
  89. Molina, P.; Vizcaíno, B.; Molina, M.D.; Beltrán, S.; González-Moya, M.; Mora, A.; Castro-Alonso, C.; Kanter, J.; Ávila, A.I.; Górriz, J.L.; et al. The Effect of High-Volume Online Haemodiafiltration on Nutritional Status and Body Composition: The ProtEin Stores PrEservaTion (PESET) Study. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2018, 33, 1223–1235.
  90. Savica, V.; Ciolino, F.; Monardo, P.; Mallamace, A.; Savica, R.; Santoro, D.; Bellinghieri, G. Nutritional Status in Hemodialysis Patients: Options for on-Line Convective Treatment. J. Ren. Nutr. 2006, 16, 237–240.
  91. Thumfart, J.; Puttkamer, C.V.; Wagner, S.; Querfeld, U.; Müller, D. Hemodiafiltration in a Pediatric Nocturnal Dialysis Program. Pediatr. Nephrol. Berl. Ger. 2014, 29, 1411–1416.
  92. Pecoits-Filho, R.; Larkin, J.; Poli-de-Figueiredo, C.E.; Cuvello-Neto, A.L.; Barra, A.B.L.; Gonçalves, P.B.; Sheth, S.; Guedes, M.; Han, M.; Calice-Silva, V.; et al. Effect of Hemodiafiltration on Measured Physical Activity: Primary Results of the HDFIT Randomized Controlled Trial. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2021, 36, 1057–1070.
  93. Karkar, A.; Abdelrahman, M.; Locatelli, F. A Randomized Trial on Health-Related Patient Satisfaction Level with High-Efficiency Online Hemodiafiltration versus High-Flux Dialysis. Blood Purif. 2015, 40, 84–91.
  94. Hazim, A.; Adarmouch, L.; Eloury, A.; Aasfara, J.; Asly, M.; Slassi, I. Hemodialysis-Related Headache: Still a Challenge in 2020? Effect of Conventional versus Online Hemodiafiltration from a Study in Casablanca, Morocco. Artif. Organs 2021, 45, 602–607.
  95. Kantartzi, K.; Panagoutsos, S.; Mourvati, E.; Roumeliotis, A.; Leivaditis, K.; Devetzis, V.; Passadakis, P.; Vargemezis, V. Can Dialysis Modality Influence Quality of Life in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients? Low-Flux Hemodialysis versus High-Flux Hemodiafiltration: A Cross-over Study. Ren. Fail. 2013, 35, 216–221.
  96. Vilar, E.; Fry, A.C.; Wellsted, D.; Tattersall, J.E.; Greenwood, R.N.; Farrington, K. Long-Term Outcomes in Online Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis: A Comparative Analysis. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2009, 4, 1944–1953.
  97. Vilar, E.; Farrington, K. Emerging Importance of Residual Renal Function in End-Stage Renal Failure. Semin. Dial. 2011, 24, 487–494.
  98. Davenport, A. Dialysis and Patient Factors Which Determine Convective Volume Exchange in Patients Treated by Postdilution Online Hemodiafiltration. Artif. Organs 2016, 40, 1121–1127.
  99. Canaud, B.; Davenport, A. The Rationale and Clinical Potential of On-line Hemodiafiltration as Renal Replacement Therapy. Semin. Dial. 2022, 35, 380–384.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback