Biocompatibility of predilution on-line hemodiafiltration

How biocompatible haemodialysers can conquer the need for systemic anticoagulation even in post-dilution haemodiafiltration: a cross-over study

Background

While systemic anticoagulation is most widely used in haemodialysis (HD), contraindications to its use might occur in particular settings. The Solacea^™ haemodialyser with an asymmetric triacetate membrane claims improved biocompatibility and has already shown promising results when used in combination with only half dose of anticoagulation. To quantify the performance of the Solacea^™ when further decreasing anticoagulation to zero, fibre blocking was assessed by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).

Methods

Ten maintenance HD patients underwent six dialysis sessions at midweek using a Solacea^™ 19H dialyser, consecutively in pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (pre-HDF), HD and post-dilution HDF (post-HDF). After the first three sessions with only a quarter of their regular anticoagulation dose (one-quarter), the last three sessions were performed without anticoagulation (zero). Dialyser fibre blocking was quantified in the dialyser outlet potting using a 3D micro-CT scanning technique post-dialysis.

Results

Even in case of reduced (one-quarter) anticoagulation, the relative number of open fibres post-dialysis was almost optimal, i.e. 0.96 (0.87-0.99) with pre-HDF, 0.99 (0.97-0.99) with HD and 0.97 (0.92-0.99) with post-HDF. Fibre patency was mildly decreased for pre-HDF and HD when anticoagulation was decreased from one-quarter to zero, i.e. to 0.76 (0.61-0.85) with pre-HDF (P = 0.004) and to 0.80 (0.77-0.89) with HD (P = 0.013). Comparing the results for zero anticoagulation, post-HDF [i.e. 0.94 (0.82-0.97)] performed as well as HD and pre-HDF.

Conclusions

The Solacea^™ dialyser provides promising results for use in conditions where systemic anticoagulation is contraindicated. Post-HDF, although inducing haemoconcentration in the dialyser, is equally effective for fibre patency in case of zero anticoagulation as pre-HDF and HD when using Solacea^™.

The Diet and Haemodialysis Dyad: Three Eras, Four Open Questions and Four Paradoxes. A Narrative Review, Towards a Personalized, Patient-Centered Approach

The history of dialysis and diet can be viewed as a series of battles waged against potential threats to patients' lives. In the early years of dialysis, potassium was identified as "the killer", and the lists patients were given of forbidden foods included most plant-derived nourishment. As soon as dialysis became more efficient and survival increased, hyperphosphatemia, was identified as the enemy, generating an even longer list of banned aliments. Conversely, the "third era" finds us combating protein-energy wasting. This review discusses four questions and four paradoxes, regarding the diet-dialysis dyad: are the "magic numbers" of nutritional requirements (calories: 30-35 kcal/kg; proteins > 1.2 g/kg) still valid? Are the guidelines based on the metabolic needs of patients on "conventional" thrice-weekly bicarbonate dialysis applicable to different dialysis schedules, including daily dialysis or haemodiafiltration? The quantity of phosphate and potassium contained in processed and preserved foods may be significantly different from those in untreated foods: what are we eating? Is malnutrition one condition or a combination of conditions? The paradoxes: obesity is associated with higher survival in dialysis, losing weight is associated with mortality, but high BMI is a contraindication for kidney transplantation; it is difficult to limit phosphate intake when a patient is on a high-protein diet, such as the ones usually prescribed on dialysis; low serum albumin is associated with low dialysis efficiency and reduced survival, but on haemodiafiltration, high efficiency is coupled with albumin losses; banning plant derived food may limit consumption of "vascular healthy" food in a vulnerable population. Tailored approaches and agreed practices are needed so that we can identify attainable goals and pursue them in our fragile haemodialysis populations.