Removal of uraemic plasma factor(s) using different dialysis modalities reduces phosphatidylserine exposure in red blood cells

Mixed hemodiafiltration reduces erythropoiesis stimulating agents requirement in dialysis patients: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Improved responsiveness to erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients on on-line post-dilution hemodiafiltration (Post-HDF) compared with conventional hemodialysis (HD) was reported by some authors but challenged by others. This prospective, cross-over randomized study tested the hypothesis that an alternative infusion modality of HDF, mixed-dilution HDF (Mixed HDF), could further reduce ESAs requirement in dialysis patients compared to the traditional Post-HDF.

METHODS

One-hundred-twenty prevalent patients from 6 Dialysis Centers were randomly assigned to two six-months treatment sequences: A-B and B-A (A, Mixed HDF; B, Post-HDF). Primary outcome was comparative evaluation of ESA (darbepoetin alfa) requirement and ESA resistance. Treatments efficiency, iron and vitamins status, inflammation and nutrition parameters were monitored.

RESULTS

In sequence A, darbepoetin requirement decreased during Mixed HDF from 29.5 to 23.7 µg/month and increased significantly during Post-HDF (32.3 µg/month at 6th month) while, in sequence B, it increased during Post-HDF from 38.2 to 43.7 µg/month and decreased during Mixed HDF (23.9 µg/month at 6th month). Overall, EPO doses at 6 months on Mixed and Post-HDF were 23.8 and 38.4 µg/month, respectively, P < 0.01. A multiple linear model confirmed that Mixed HDF vs Post-HDF reduced significantly ESA requirement and ESA resistance (P < 0.0001), by a mean of 29% (CI 23-35%) in the last three months of the observation periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed HDF decreased darbepoetin-alfa requirement in dialysis patients. This might help preventing the untoward side effects of high ESA doses, besides having a remarkable economic impact. Additional evidence is needed to confirm this potential benefit of Mixed-HDF.

Examining hemodialyzer membrane performance using proteomic technologies

The success and the quality of hemodialysis therapy are mainly related to both clearance and biocompatibility properties of the artificial membrane packed in the hemodialyzer. Performance of a membrane is strongly influenced by its interaction with the plasma protein repertoire during the extracorporeal procedure. Recognition that a number of medium-high molecular weight solutes, including proteins and protein-bound molecules, are potentially toxic has prompted the development of more permeable membranes. Such membrane engineering, however, may cause loss of vital proteins, with membrane removal being nonspecific. In addition, plasma proteins can be adsorbed onto the membrane surface upon blood contact during dialysis. Adsorption can contribute to the removal of toxic compounds and governs the biocompatibility of a membrane, since surface-adsorbed proteins may trigger a variety of biologic blood pathways with pathophysiologic consequences. Over the last years, use of proteomic approaches has allowed polypeptide spectrum involved in the process of hemodialysis, a key issue previously hampered by lack of suitable technology, to be assessed in an unbiased manner and in its full complexity. Proteomics has been successfully applied to identify and quantify proteins in complex mixtures such as dialysis outflow fluid and fluid desorbed from dialysis membrane containing adsorbed proteins. The identified proteins can also be characterized by their involvement in metabolic and signaling pathways, molecular networks, and biologic processes through application of bioinformatics tools. Proteomics may thus provide an actual functional definition as to the effect of a membrane material on plasma proteins during hemodialysis. Here, we review the results of proteomic studies on the performance of hemodialysis membranes, as evaluated in terms of solute removal efficiency and blood-membrane interactions. The evidence collected indicates that the information provided by proteomic investigations yields improved molecular and functional knowledge and may lead to the development of more efficient membranes for the potential benefit of the patient.

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.

Dialysis patients and cardiovascular problems: can technology solve the complex equation?

Patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing chronic hemodialysis present higher mortality rates compared with the general population. Once patients are on hemodialysis, the risk of cardiovascular death is approximately 30-times higher than the general population, and still remains 10- to 20-times higher after stratification for age, gender and presence of diabetes. Approximately half of patient deaths on dialysis are attributed to cardiovascular causes, including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease and heart failure. The cardiovascular burden of the hemodialysis patient arises from three different sources: risks inherent to the patient and the uremic syndrome, traditional risk factors and risk factors related to the dialysis therapy. Based on these considerations and the fact that several aspects of the dialysis procedure can cause either a cardiovascular burden or modify the burden already present, new technologies should be directed towards the approach of a possible 'cardioprotective dialysis therapy'. This approach may significantly contribute new techniques and new dialysis machines. Born to make dialysis easy and safe, the new machines feature several options that make monitoring and online hemodiafiltration a simple routine. These and other features could make dialysis better tolerated and more efficient in protecting from fatal cardiovascular events.

Dialysis Patients and Cardiovascular Problems: Can Technology Help Solve the Complex Equation?

Patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing chronic hemodialysis (HD) present higher mortality rates compared with the general population. Once patients are on HD, the risk of cardiovascular death is approximately 30 times higher than in the general population and remains 10-20 times higher after stratification for age, gender, and the presence of diabetes. About half the deaths of patients on dialysis are attributed to cardiovascular causes including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure. The cardiovascular burden of the HD patient arises from three different sources: risks inherent to the patient and the uremic syndrome, traditional risk factors, and risk factors related to the dialysis therapy. Based on these considerations and the fact that several aspects of the dialysis procedure can either add to the cardiovascular burden or modify the existing burden, new technologies should be directed towards the approach of a potential 'cardioprotective dialysis therapy'; such an approach may be facilitated by the application of new techniques and advanced dialysis machines. Created to make dialysis easy and safe, new machines feature several options that make patient monitoring and online hemodiafiltration therapy routine procedures. These and other features will possibly make dialysis better tolerated and more efficient in protecting patients from undesirable or potentially fatal cardiovascular events.

On-line haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis: stable haematocrit with less erythropoietin and improvement of other relevant blood parameters

BACKGROUND

Controlled randomised studies to prove improved cardiovascular stability and improved anaemia management during on-line haemodiafiltration (oHDF) are scarce.

METHODS

70 patients were treated with both haemodialysis (HD) and oHDF in a cross-over design during 2 x 24 weeks at a dialysis dose of eKt/V> or =1.2. Patients randomised into group A started on HD and switched over to oHDF, whereas patients in group B began with oHDF and were treated with HD afterwards. Intradialytic morbid events (IME), such as symptomatic hypotension or muscle cramps, were noted in case of appearance. Blood parameters reflecting anaemic status, phosphate status, lipid metabolism, oxidative stress, and accumulation of advanced glycation end products were recorded either monthly or at the end of each study phase.

RESULTS

The mean incidence of IME was 0.15 IME per treatment, and there was no statistical difference between oHDF and HD. A higher haematocrit (oHDF 31.5% vs. HD 30.5%, p < 0.01) at a lower erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,913 vs. HD 5,492 IU/week, p = 0.02) was found during oHDF, when the sequence of HD and oHDF had not been taken into account. For the study groups, the results were less distinct: in group A, a higher haematocrit (HD 30.4% vs. oHDF 32.0%, p < 0.01) at a comparable erythropoietin dose (HD 5,421 vs. oHDF 5,187 IU/week, ns) was observed during oHDF, whereas in group B an identical haematocrit (oHDF 30.8% vs. HD 30.7%, ns) was achieved at a reduced erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,622 vs. HD 5,568 IU/week, p < 0.01). During oHDF, lower levels of free and protein-bound pentosidine and of serum phosphate were found.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to other studies, no benefit regarding cardiovascular stability for oHDF was found, but oHDF could well offer a potential benefit regarding anaemia correction, inflammation, oxidative stress, lipid profiles, and calcium-phosphate product.