Comparison of hemodialysis, hemofiltration, and acetate-free biofiltration for ESRD: systematic review

Assessment of quality of life determinants in hemodialysis patients of a developing country: A cross-sectional study during ongoing COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patients of end-stage renal disease are prone to have a very low quality of life (QoL). Variety of factors influence the QoL among sufferers of chronic kidney disease comprising of type of dialysis, sufficiency/adequacy of dialysis, and associated burden of disease. We conducted this study amidst the pandemic to determine the associated factors for poor QoL in hemodialysis patients during the ongoing pandemic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in a hemodialysis unit of a tertiary care hospital. A total of 118 participants responded to the validated questionnaire of Quality of Life Index-dialysis version-III (QLI). Higher scores signify good QoL, total scores are further categorized into subgroups desirable, relatively desirable and undesirable.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 57.36 ± 10.03 years and mean body mass index of 26.73 ± 5.54 kg/m2. The mean total QoL of the study population was found quite low (12.99 ± 5.89). Majority of respondents fell in undesirable category of QoL (49.2%). Total QoL (P = 0.004) and subscale health/functioning (P = 0.003) were significantly lower in females. All the subscales along with total QoL scores were found lower in twice-weekly dialyzed patients (P < 0.001). Marital status (P = 0.049) and twice-weekly dialysis (P < 0.001) were found significant with undesirable QoL. On multivariate analysis, significant determinants of undesirable QoL were twice-weekly dialysis (P = 0.001), catheter access (P = 0.034), phosphate (P = 0.005) and uric acid (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Inadequate dialysis due to lesser frequency per week leading to poorly cleared toxic substances were most significant contributors of poor QoL in our study.

Switching from high-flux dialysis to hemodiafiltration: Cost-consequences for patients, providers, and payers

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) achieves a more efficient reduction of the uremic toxic load compared to standard high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) by virtue of the combined diffusive and convective clearances of a broad spectrum of uremic retention solutes. Clinical trials and registry data suggest that HDF improves patient outcomes. Despite the acknowledged need to improve survival rates of dialysis patients and the survival benefit HDF offers, there is little to no utilization in some countries (such as the US) in prescribing HDF to their patients. In this analysis, we present the healthcare value-based case for HDF (relative to HF-HD) from the patient, provider, and payor perspectives. The improved survival and reduced morbidity observed in studies conducted outside the US, as well as the reduced hospitalization, are attractive for each stakeholder. We also consider the potential barriers to greater utilization of HDF therapies, including unfounded concerns regarding additional costs of HDF, e.g., for the preparation and microbial testing of quality of substitution fluids. Ultrapure fluids are easily attainable and prepared from dialysis fluids using established "online" (OL) technologies. OL-HDF has matured to a level whereby little additional effort is required to safely implement it as all modern machine systems are today equipped with the OL-HDF functionality. Countries already convinced of the advantages of HF-HD are thus well positioned to make the transition to OL-HDF to achieve further clinical and associated economic benefits. Healthcare systems struggling to cope with the increasing demand for HD therapies would therefore, like patients, be beneficiaries in the long term with increased usage of OL-HDF for end stage kidney disease patients.

Assessing Resources in a Population of Hemodialysis Patients: A New Approach to Improve Quality of Care

Hemodialysis patients constitute a vulnerable population. Their health needs are considerable and they often present psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Empirical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of positive psychology interventions to enhance the well-being of patients and alleviate their depressive symptoms. One such intervention consists in identifying and mobilizing patient resources to activate their recovery. An intervention of the sort was implemented in Switzerland with hemodialysis nurses using AERES, a novel self-assessment instrument. AERES covers 31 domains under three dimensions: personal characteristics/qualities, hobbies/passions, and social/environmental resources. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore hemodialysis nurse perceptions of the use of this instrument. Sixteen hemodialysis nurses were recruited in six hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland and interviewed after delivering the intervention. A consensual qualitative research method was used to analyze the data. Results showed that the resources instrument was easy to administer and beneficial to patients and health professionals. Patient wellbeing became the top priority for the nurses and new interventions centered on patient resources were undertaken. Quality of patient care was improved. Nurses perceived this positive psychology instrument as a means of creating a positive relationship with patients and supporting them emotionally. Assessing the resources of this vulnerable population can provide health professionals with a powerful tool to understand patient intact resources, which can be used to alleviate symptoms and foster wellbeing.

Renal Replacement Modality Affects Uremic Toxins and Oxidative Stress

Nowadays, the high prevalence of kidney diseases and their related complications, including endothelial dysfunction and cardiovascular disease, represents one of the leading causes of death in patients with chronic kidney diseases. Renal failure leads to accumulation of uremic toxins, which are the main cause of oxidative stress development. The renal replacement therapy appears to be the best way to lower uremic toxin levels in patients with end-stage renal disease and reduce oxidative stress. At this moment, despite the increasing number of recognized toxins and their mechanisms of action, it is impossible to determine which of them are the most important and which cause the greatest complications. There are many different types of renal replacement therapy, but the best treatment has not been identified yet. Patients treated with diffusion methods have satisfactory clearance of small molecules, but the clearance of medium molecules appears to be insufficient, but treatment with convection methods cleans medium molecules better than small molecules. Hence, there is an urgent need of new more validated, appropriate, and reliable information not only on toxins and their role in metabolic disorders, including oxidative stress, but also on the best artificial renal replacement therapy to reduce complications and prolong the life of patients with chronic kidney disease.

[Online hemodiafiltration: Practical aspects, safety and efficacy]

Purification of high molecular uremic toxins by conventional hemodialysis is limited. It remains associated with a high morbidity and excessively high mortality. Online hemodiafiltration using a high permeability hemodiafilter, an ultrapure dialysate, and which tends to maximize substitution volumes, provides a high efficiency and low bio-incompatibility renal supplementation. Regular use of online hemodiafiltration is associated with reduced morbidity (reduction of intradialytic hypotension episodes, improved blood pressure control, reduced inflammatory profile, better anemia correction and prevention of β₂-microglobulin-associated amyloidosis). Recently, several cohort studies have shown that hemodiafiltration with high substitution volume was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Randomized studies have been conducted in Europe to confirm these facts. The high safety of online hemodiafiltration has been confirmed in clinical practice by prospective studies. Online hemodiafiltration has reached its full maturity phase and is expected to represent the new standard of renal replacement therapy.

Dialysis-related amyloidosis: challenges and solutions

Amyloidosis refers to the extracellular tissue deposition of fibrils composed of low-molecular-weight subunits of a variety of proteins. These deposits may result in a wide range of clinical manifestations depending upon their type, location, and the amount of deposition. Dialysis-related amyloidosis is a serious complication of long-term dialysis therapy and is characterized by the deposition of amyloid fibrils, principally composed of β2 microglobulins (β2M), in the osteoarticular structures and viscera. Most of the β2M is eliminated through glomerular filtration and subsequent reabsorption and catabolism by the proximal tubules. As a consequence, the serum levels of β2M are inversely related to the glomerular filtration rate; therefore, in end-stage renal disease patients, β2M levels increase up to 60-fold. Serum levels of β2M are also elevated in several pathological conditions such as chronic inflammation, liver disease, and above all, in renal dysfunction. Retention of amyloidogenic protein has been attributed to several factors including type of dialysis membrane, prolonged uremic state and/or decreased diuresis, advanced glycation end products, elevated levels of cytokines and dialysate. Dialysis treatment per se has been considered to be an inflammatory stimulus, inducing cytokine production (such as interleukin-1, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6) and complement activation. The released cytokines are thought to stimulate the synthesis and release of β2M by the macrophages and/or augment the expression of human leukocyte antigens (class I), increasing β2M expression. Residual renal function is probably the best determinant of β2M levels. Therefore, it has to be maintained as long as possible. In this article, we will focus our attention on the etiology of dialysis-related amyloidosis, its prevention, therapy, and future solutions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis

Background

Clinical studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may lead to better clinical outcomes than high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD), but concerns have been raised about the cost-effectiveness of HDF versus HF-HD. Aim of this study was to investigate whether clinical benefits, in terms of longer survival and better health-related quality of life, are worth the possibly higher costs of HDF compared to HF-HD.

Methods

The analysis comprised a simulation based on the combined results of previous published studies, with the following steps: 1) estimation of the survival function of HF-HD patients from a clinical trial and of HDF patients using the risk reduction estimated in a meta-analysis; 2) simulation of the survival of the same sample of patients as if allocated to HF-HD or HDF using three-state Markov models; and 3) application of state-specific health-related quality of life coefficients and differential costs derived from the literature. Several Monte Carlo simulations were performed, including simulations for patients with different risk profiles, for example, by age (patients aged 40, 50, and 60 years), sex, and diabetic status. Scatter plots of simulations in the cost-effectiveness plane were produced, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were computed.

Results

An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €6,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was estimated for the baseline cohort of 50-year-old male patients. Given the commonly accepted threshold of €40,000/QALY, HDF is cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDF is cost-effective with a probability of ~81% at a threshold of €40,000/QALY. It is fundamental to measure the outcome also in terms of quality of life. HDF is more cost-effective for younger patients.

Conclusion

HDF can be considered cost-effective compared to HF-HD.

Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Convective dialysis modalities (haemofiltration (HF), haemodiafiltration (HDF), and acetate-free biofiltration (AFB)) removed excess body fluid across the dialysis membrane with positive pressure and accumulated middle- and larger-size accumulated solutes more efficiently than haemodialysis (HD). This increased larger solute removal combined with use of ultra-pure dialysis fluid in convective dialysis is hypothesised to reduce the frequency and severity of symptoms during dialysis as well as improve clinical outcomes. Convective dialysis therapies (HDF and HF) are associated with lower mortality compared to diffusive therapy (HD) in observational studies. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To compare convective (HF, HDF, or AFB) with diffusive (HD) dialysis modalities on clinical outcomes (mortality, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and treatment-related adverse events) in men and women with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 18 February 2015) through contact with a Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing convective therapy (HF, HDF, AFB) with another convective therapy or diffusive therapy (HD) for treatment of ESKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors identified studies, extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects using the random effects model. We reported results as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous data together with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed for heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test and explored the amount of variation in treatment estimates beyond that expected by chance using the I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies comprising 667 participants were included in the 2006 review. In that review, there was insufficient evidence of treatment effects on major clinical outcomes to draw clinically meaningful conclusions. Searching to February 2015 identified 40 eligible studies comprising 3483 participants overall. In total, 35 studies (4039 participants) compared HF, HDF or AFB with HD, three studies (54 participants) compared AFB with HDF, and three studies (129 participants) compared HDF with HF.Risks of bias in all studies were generally high resulting in low confidence in estimated treatment effects. Convective dialysis had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (11 studies, 3396 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; I(2) = 34%), but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 2889 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; I(2) = 0%). One study reported no significant effect on rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events (714 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.50) and two studies showed no significant difference in hospitalisation (2 studies, 1688 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.63; I(2) = 0%). One study reported rates of hypotension during dialysis were significantly reduced with convective therapy (906 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80). Adverse events were not systematically evaluated in most studies and data for health-related quality of life were sparse. Convective therapies significantly reduced predialysis levels of B2 microglobulin (12 studies, 1813 participants: MD -5.55 mg/dL, 95% CI -9.11 to -1.98; I(2) = 94%) and increased dialysis dose (Kt/V urea) (14 studies, 2022 participants: MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.14; I(2) = 90%) compared to diffusive therapy, but results across studies were very heterogeneous. Sensitivity analyses limited to studies comparing HDF with HD showed very similar results. Directly comparative data for differing types of convective dialysis were insufficient to draw conclusions.Studies had important risks of bias leading to low confidence in the summary estimates and were generally limited to patients who had adequate dialysis vascular access.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Convective dialysis may reduce cardiovascular but not all-cause mortality and effects on nonfatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation are inconclusive. However, any treatment benefits of convective dialysis on all patient outcomes including cardiovascular death are unreliable due to limitations in study methods and reporting. Future studies which assess treatment effects of convection dose on patient outcomes including mortality and cardiovascular events would be informative.

High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines regarding the use of high-flux haemodialysis membranes vary widely.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyse the current evidence reported for the benefits and harms of high-flux and low-flux haemodialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2011), and EMBASE (1947 to March 2011) without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-flux haemodialysis with low-flux haemodialysis in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who required long-term haemodialysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors for study characteristics (participants and interventions), risks of bias, and outcomes (all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality, hospitalisation, health-related quality of life, carpal tunnel syndrome, dialysis-related arthropathy, kidney function, and symptoms) among people on haemodialysis. Treatment effects were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies that involved 3820 participants with ESKD. High-flux membranes reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 studies, 2612 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99) but not all-cause mortality (10 studies, 2915 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04) or infection-related mortality (3 studies, 2547 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14). In absolute terms, high-flux membranes may prevent three cardiovascular deaths in 100 people treated with haemodialysis for two years. While high-flux membranes reduced predialysis beta-2 microglobulin levels (MD -12.17 mg/L, 95% CI -15.83 to -8.51 mg/L), insufficient data were available to reliably estimate the effects of membrane flux on hospitalisation, carpal tunnel syndrome, or amyloid-related arthropathy. Evidence for effects of high-flux membranes was limited by selective reporting in a few studies. Insufficient numbers of studies limited our ability to conduct subgroup analyses for membrane type, biocompatibility, or reuse. In general, the risk of bias was either high or unclear in the majority of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-flux haemodialysis may reduce cardiovascular mortality in people requiring haemodialysis by about 15%. A large well-designed RCT is now required to confirm this finding.

Novel Trends in Haemodialysis: Where Are We Heading?

The mortality and morbidity of end-stage renal failure patients undergoing conventional thrice weekly in-centre haemodialysis remain alarmingly high despite continuing advances in haemodialysis technologies and improvements in clinical care. Home haemodialysis continues to be under-utilised in many parts of the world despite the reported benefits. Alternative haemodialysis regimens including longer and/or more frequent dialysis (e.g. nocturnal haemodialysis and short daily haemodialysis), haemodiafiltration and the use of high flux dialysers have become more widespread in recent years as nephrologists struggle to improve the dismal survival figures. Whilst most of the encouraging data have come from observational studies, many randomised controlled trials which will provide more robust data are already underway. This review aims to provide a concise update of the recent and novel trends in haemodialysis. Key words: Haemodiafiltration, High flux dialysis, Home haemodialysis, Nocturnal haemodialysis, Short daily haemodialysis

Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews of clinical studies aim to compile best available evidence for various diagnosis and treatment options. This study assessed the methodologic quality of all systematic reviews relevant to the practice of nephrology published in 2005.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Cochrane) and hand searched Cochrane renal group records. Clinical practice guidelines, case reports, narrative reviews, and pooled individual patient data meta-analyses were excluded. Methodologic quality was measured using a validated questionnaire (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire). For reviews of randomized trials, we also evaluated adherence to recommended reporting guidelines (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses).

RESULTS

Ninety renal systematic reviews were published in year 2005, 60 of which focused on therapy. Many systematic reviews (54%) had major methodologic flaws. The most common review flaws were failure to assess the methodologic quality of included primary studies and failure to minimize bias in study inclusion. Only 2% of reviews of randomized trials fully adhered to reporting guidelines. A minority of journals (four of 48) endorsed adherence to consensus guidelines for review reporting, and these journals published systematic reviews of higher methodologic quality (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of systematic reviews had major methodologic flaws. The majority of journals do not endorse consensus guidelines for review reporting in their instructions to authors; however, journals that recommended such adherence published systemic reviews of higher methodologic quality.

Markers of bone metabolism in hemodialyses and hemodiafiltration

Renal osteodystrophy is a common complication of chronic renal failure and renal replacement therapy. The purpose of the study was to assess whether hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF) affects bone turnover. In all, 45 HD and 17 HDF patients were evaluated with respect to bone metabolism markers. We assessed PTH; markers of bone formation-alkaline phosphatase and its bone isoform, osteocalcin; markers of bone resorption- PICP, ICTP; Ctx; beta2-microglobulin; and urinary DPD. BMD were determined for femoral neck and lumbar spine (L2-L4) using DEXA. Hemodialyzed patients had lower calcidiol, calcitriol, and BMD in the femur neck, and higher phosphate, Kt/V, residual renal function, venous pH, osteocalcin, ALP, bALP, DPD, beta2-microglobulin, ICTP, Ctx, osteoprotegerin, and RANKL than patients on HDF. HDF seems to ameliorate bone metabolism in comparison with HD. Bone turnover in end-stage renal failure might be affected to some extent by the choice of renal replacement therapy.

Hemodiafiltration history, technology, and clinical results

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) is an extracorporeal renal-replacement technique using a highly permeable membrane, in which diffusion and convection are conveniently combined to enhance solute removal in a wide spectrum of molecular weights. In this modality, ultrafiltration exceeds the desired fluid loss in the patient, and replacement fluid must be administered to achieve the target fluid balance. Over the years, various HDF variants have emerged, including acetate-free biofiltration, high-volume HDF, internal HDF, paired-filtration dialysis, middilution HDF, double high-flux HDF, push-pull HDF, and online HDF. Recent technology has allowed online production of large volumes of microbiologically ultrapure fluid for reinfusion, greatly simplifying the practice of HDF. Several advantages of HDF over purely diffusive hemodialysis techniques have been described in the literature, including a greater clearance of urea, phosphate, beta(2)-microglobulin and other larger solutes, reduction in dialysis hypotension, and improved anemia management. Although randomized controlled trials have failed to show a survival benefit of HDF, recent data from large observational studies suggest a positive effect of HDF on survival. This article provides a brief review of the history of HDF, the various HDF techniques, and summary of their clinical effects.

Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals

Physicians often scan a select number of journals to keep up to date with practice evidence for patients with kidney conditions. This raises the question of where relevant studies are published. We performed a bibliometric analysis using 195 renal systematic reviews. Each review used a comprehensive method to identify all primary studies for a focused clinical question relevant to patient care. We compiled all the primary studies included in these reviews, and considered where each study was published. Of the 2779 studies, 1351 (49%) were published in the top 20 journals. Predictably, this list included Transplantation Proceedings (5.9% of studies), Kidney International (5.3%), American Journal of Kidney Diseases (4.7%), Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (4.3%), Transplantation (4.2%), and Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2.4%). Ten non-renal journals were also on this list, including New England Journal of Medicine (2.4%), Lancet (2.3%), and Diabetes Care (2.2%). The remaining 1428 (51%) studies were published across other 446 journals. When the disciplines of all journals were considered, 59 were classified as renal or transplant journals (42% of articles). Other specialties included general and internal medicine (16%), endocrinology (diabetes) and metabolism (6.5%), surgery (6.2%), cardiovascular diseases (6.1%), pediatrics (4.3%), and radiology (3.3%). About half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Browsing the top journals is important. However, relevant studies are also scattered across a large range of journals that may not be routinely scanned by busy physicians, and keeping up with this literature requires other continuing education strategies.

Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: European results from the DOPPS

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) is used sporadically for renal replacement therapy in Europe but not in the US. Characteristics and outcomes were compared for patients receiving HDF versus hemodialysis (HD) in five European countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. The study followed 2165 patients from 1998 to 2001, stratified into four groups: low- and high-flux HD, and low- and high-efficiency HDF. Patient characteristics including age, sex, 14 comorbid conditions, and time on dialysis were compared between each group using multivariate logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards regression assessed adjusted differences in mortality risk. Prevalence of HDF ranged from 1.8% in Spain to 20.1% in Italy. Compared to low-flux HD, patients receiving low-efficiency HDF had significantly longer average duration of end-stage renal disease (7.0 versus 4.7 years), more history of cancer (15.4 versus 8.7%), and lower phosphorus (5.3 versus 5.6 mg/dl); patients receiving high-efficiency HDF had significantly more lung disease (15.5 versus 10.2%) and received a higher single-pool Kt/V (1.44 versus 1.35). High-efficiency HDF patients had lower crude mortality rates than low-flux HD patients. After adjustment, high-efficiency HDF patients had a significant 35% lower mortality risk than those receiving low-flux HD (relative risk=0.65, P=0.01). These observational results suggest that HDF may improve patient survival independently of its higher dialysis dose. Owing to possible selection bias, the potential benefits of HDF must be tested by controlled clinical trials before recommendations can be made for clinical practice.

Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) can be achieved by several interventions including haemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplantation. HD, haemofiltration (HF), haemodiafiltration (HDF) and acetate-free biofiltration (AFB) are extracorporeal RRT methods. It has been suggested that HF and HDF may reduce the frequency and severity of intradialytic and post-dialytic adverse symptoms and may be more effective than HD in the removal of high molecular weight molecules.

OBJECTIVES

To compare convective modes of extracorporeal RRT (HF, HDF or AFB) with HD and to establish if any of these techniques is superior to each other in patients with ESKD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library issue 2, 2006) and CINAHL (1872-2006). Authors of included studies were contacted, reference lists of identified RCTs and relevant narrative reviews were screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing HF, HDF, AFB and HD for ESKD were included. Trials enrolling any patient undergoing RRT for ESKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or weighted mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was measured using the Chi-square (chi(2)) and I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (657 patients) were included. Seventeen studies compared HF, HDF or AFB with HD, two compared HDF with AFB and one compared HF with HDF. The studies were generally small with suboptimal quality. Convective modalities (HF, HDF, AFB) did not differ significantly from HD for mortality (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 12.13; chi(2)= 2.58, P = 0.11, I(2) = 61.2%), number of hospital admissions/year (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.47) and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V: MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; chi(2) = 3.73, P = 0.29, I(2) = 19.6%). No study assessed number of dialysis treatments associated with "any adverse symptoms", sessions that were stopped early, change of dialysis modality or dialysis-related amyloidosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to demonstrate whether convective modalities (either HF, HDF or AFB) have significant advantages over HD with regard to clinically important outcomes of mortality, dialysis-related hypotension and hospitalisation. More adequately-powered good quality RCTs assessing clinically important outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, quality of life) are needed.

No benefit of hemodiafiltration over hemodialysis in lowering elevated levels of asymmetric dimethylarginine in ESRD patients

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that hemodiafiltration (HDF) is more efficient than hemodialysis (HD) in lowering plasma levels of the endogenous nitric oxide synthase inhibitor asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), which is a strong and independent predictor of overall mortality in ESRD patients.

METHODS/PATIENTS

Twenty ESRD patients (11 women) were studied during both a single online HDF session and a single HD session. In each patient, ADMA, L-arginine, SDMA, beta(2)-microglobulin and urea were measured at several time points.

RESULTS

Although HDF was clearly superior to HD in decreasing plasma beta(2)-microglobulin, there was no difference in the elimination characteristics of ADMA. However, HDF but not HD eliminated the nitric oxide synthase substrate L-arginine, making HD superior in increasing the L-arginine/ADMA ratio.

CONCLUSION

Neither HD nor HDF sufficiently removes the putative uremic toxin ADMA. The clinical significance of HD better improving the L-arginine/ADMA ratio (parameter of NO production) as compared to HDF needs to be determined.

[What is new in pediatric nephrology?]

Recent advances in the knowledge of physiology, genetics, imaging, and therapeutics have lead to novel practical approaches in paediatric nephrology. Many inherited syndromes have been revisited in order to identify precise renal diseases at the molecular level. In addition, a large number of epidemiological studies and clinical trials have allowed guidelines and recommendations to be provided for chronic and end-stage renal failure, urinary tract infection, glomerular diseases, etc.