Dialysate/infusate composition and infusion mode in on-line hemodiafiltration

Overcoming glucose delivery by on-line hemodiafiltration: a feasible chimera for diabetics on dialysis

The increasing number of patients with diabetes undergoing renal replacement therapy has raised interest in the issue of glucose delivery with the substitution fluid-over 20 g per session. The ideal situation would be to have a glucose-containing bath to avoid glycemic disarrays and a glucose-free substitution fluid. But this seems a chimera because the substitution fluid is nothing else than an ultrapure dialysis bath. In this technical note, we present a cheap solution to realize the desired mix, using a commercially available glucose-free dialysate and adding glucose in the inlet dialysate compartment of the dialyzer by means of a common pump and a unique handmade T-tube. Our in vitro experiments showed glucose levels in the dialysate (mean ± SD, mg/dl): 99.7 ± 4.6 at baseline, 100.7 ± 7.3 at mid-session and 100.7 ± 2.1 at the end of dialysis, whereas measurements in the substitution fluid always gave a "low" output (p < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained in single 1- and 4-h in vivo experiments carried out in a non-diabetic overweight hemodialysis patient. Our simple, yet unequivocal, results lay the foundation for assembling a hemodialysis machine equipped with an infusion pump to modify the on-line substitution fluid without affecting the dialysate. This would overcome the ethical issue of delivering glucose intravenously in certain groups of patients.

Haemodialysis and haemodiafiltration lead to similar changes in vascular stiffness during treatment

BACKGROUND

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) has been reported to cause less hypotension than haemodialysis (HD). We hypothesized that HDF causes less change in vascular tone, thereby reducing hypotension.

METHODS

Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWVao) was measured in 284 patients, during a single dialysis session using cooled dialysate (117 HD, 177 HDF). Patient groups were matched for age, sex and cardiovascular comorbidity.

RESULTS

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) declined from 144 ± 26 to 133 ± 26 after 20 minutes, and to 131 ± 26 mmHg post HD, and for HDF from 152 ± 26 to 143 ± 27 after 20 minutes, then to 138 ± 27 mmHg post HDF. Net Ultrafiltration rates to achieve weight loss were similar; HD 0.13 ± 0.06 vs HDF 0.12 ± 0.05 mL/kg/min. PWVao did not change after 20 minutes HD 0.42(-0.7 to 1.3), HDF 0.5 (-0.6 to 1.8) or at the end of the session: HD -0.39 (1.5 to 1.2), HDF -0.41(-2.0 to 1.3) m/s. Aortic augmentation index (AiAxo), assessment of vascular tone fell significantly with both HD; 20 minutes by 6.2 (-2.5 to 14), end 5.6 (-6.7 to 13.9), and HDF 20 min by 4.2 (-2.5 to 10), end 7.8 (-0.8 to 19.3), with no difference between HD and HDF. The ultrafiltration rate correlated with % change in aortic SBP (r = 0.28 p = 0.004), but not with changes in PWVao or augmentation indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood pressure declined during both HD and HDF treatments, as did augmentation indices, unrelated to weight loss, suggesting a reduction in vascular stiffness occurs independently of treatment modality. We did not observe an advantage for HDF.

On-line mixed hemodiafiltration with a feedback for ultrafiltration control: effect on middle-molecule removal

BACKGROUND

Increased middle-molecular uremic toxin removal seems to favorably influence survival in dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to verify if, in on-line mixed hemodiafiltration, solute removal by convection may be enhanced by forcing the ultrafiltration rate (QUF) and optimizing the infusion technique in order to achieve the highest possible filtration fraction (FF).

METHODS

Removal of beta2-microglobulin (beta2-m), urea, creatinine, and phosphate were compared in 20 patients randomly submitted to one dialysis session (A), one postdilution hemodiafiltration session (B), and three sessions of mixed hemodiafiltration (C, D, and E) at different infusion rates (QS). In mixed hemodiafiltration, a newly developed feedback system automatically maintained the transmembrane pressure (TMP) within its highest range of safety (250 to 300 mm Hg) at constant QUF, while ensuring the maximum FF by splitting infusion between pre- and postdilution.

RESULTS

A mean QS of 134 +/- 20 mL/min (mean FF = 0.65) was attained in post-HDF, and up to 307 +/- 41 mL/min (mean FF = 0.69) in mixed hemodiafiltration. The mean dialysate clearances (KDQ) for all tested solutes and urea eKt/V were significantly higher in all hemodiafiltration sessions than in dialysis. Only in the case of urea did the infusion mode have no significant effect. KDQ for beta2-m was maximal in session D and significantly higher than in session B (90.2 +/- 11 mL/min vs. 77.5 +/- 11 mL/min; P = 0.02). KDQ for beta2-m significantly correlated with QS and the plasma water flow rate (QPW). The highest KDQ for beta2-m was found at values of QS approximately QPW. Beyond this value KDQ decreased.

CONCLUSION

The mixed infusion mode in hemodiafiltration, controlled by the TMP-ultrafiltration feedback, seems to improve the efficiency of hemodiafiltration by fully exploiting the convective mechanism of solute removal. The feedback automatically adjusted the infusion rate and site to the maximum FF taking into account flow conditions, internal pressures, and hydraulic permeability of the dialyzer and their complex interactions.

Sodium balance in hemodialysis therapy

Water and sodium overload is the predominant factor in the pathogenesis of hypertension in dialysis patients. In many dialysis patients, dry weight is not reached because of an imbalance between the interdialytic accumulation of water and sodium and the brief and discontinuous nature of routine dialysis therapy. During dialysis, sodium is removed by convection and to a lesser degree by diffusion. However, with supraphysiologic dialysate sodium concentrations, diffusive influx from dialysate may occur, especially in patients with low predialytic plasma sodium concentrations. Measuring sodium removal during dialysis is difficult and hampered by the variability in conventional sodium measurements. Ionic mass removal by continuous measurement of conductivity in the dialysate ports appears to be a promising tool for the approximation of sodium removal during dialysis. While the beneficial effects of concomitant water and sodium removal on blood pressure control in dialysis patients are undisputed, it is less well known whether a change in hydrosodium balance solely by reducing dialysate sodium is beneficial. Considering the inherent dangers of such an approach (intradialytic hemodynamic instability), the beneficial effects of strict dietary sodium restriction appear to be of much larger clinical benefit. It has become possible to individualize dialysate sodium concentration by means of online measurements of plasma conductivity and adjustment of dialysate conductivity by feedback technologies. The clinical benefits of this approach deserve further study. Still, reducing dietary sodium intake remains the most important tool in improving blood control in dialysis patients.