Quality of Life and Hemodynamic Effects of Switching From Hemodialysis to Hemodiafiltration: A Canadian Controlled Cohort Study

Hemoincompatibility in Hemodialysis-Related Therapies and Their Health Economic Perspectives

Hemobiologic reactions associated with the hemoincompatibility of extracorporeal circuit material are an undesirable and inevitable consequence of all blood-contacting medical devices, typically considered only from a clinical perspective. In hemodialysis (HD), the blood of patients undergoes repetitive (at least thrice weekly for 4 h and lifelong) exposure to different polymeric materials that activate plasmatic pathways and blood cells. There is a general agreement that hemoincompatibility reactions, although unavoidable during extracorporeal therapies, are unphysiological contributors to non-hemodynamic dialysis-induced systemic stress and need to be curtailed. Strategies to lessen the periodic and direct effects of blood interacting with artificial surfaces to stimulate numerous biological pathways have focused mainly on the development of 'more passive' materials to decrease intradialytic morbidity. The indirect implications of this phenomenon, such as its impact on the overall delivery of care, have not been considered in detail. In this article, we explore, for the first time, the potential clinical and economic consequences of hemoincompatibility from a value-based healthcare (VBHC) perspective. As the fundamental tenet of VBHC is achieving the best clinical outcomes at the lowest cost, we examine the equation from the individual perspectives of the three key stakeholders of the dialysis care delivery processes: the patient, the provider, and the payer. For the patient, sub-optimal therapy caused by hemoincompatibility results in poor quality of life and various dialysis-associated conditions involving cost-impacting adjustments to lifestyles. For the provider, the decrease in income is attributed to factors such as an increase in workload and use of resources, dissatisfaction of the patient from the services provided, loss of reimbursement and direct revenue, or an increase in doctor-nurse turnover due to the complexity of managing care (nephrology encounters a chronic workforce shortage). The payer and healthcare system incur additional costs, e.g., increased hospitalization rates, including intensive care unit admissions, and increased medications and diagnostics to counteract adverse events and complications. Thus, hemoincompatibility reactions may be relevant from a socioeconomic perspective and may need to be addressed beyond just its clinical relevance to streamline the delivery of HD in terms of payability, future sustainability, and societal repercussions. Strategies to mitigate the economic impact and address the cost-effectiveness of the hemoincompatibility of extracorporeal kidney replacement therapy are proposed to conclude this comprehensive approach.

Delayed post-dialysis recovery times are associated with relative changes in intracellular and extracellular fluid ratios between different body compartments

INTRODUCTION

Hemodialysis patient groups have advocated reducing dialysis fatigue and symptoms. We investigated whether compartmental fluid shifts were associated with peri-dialytic fatigue and symptoms.

METHODS

Sessional dialysis records of patients reporting both a short and delayed recovery (<1 h and ≥1 h) with corresponding bioimpedance measurements were reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four patients reported both short and delayed recovery times, mean age 66.0 ± 14.8 years, 66.1% male. Differences between sessions included higher distress thermometer [4 (1-6) vs. 3 (0-5)], fatigue [4 (0-9) vs. 2 (0-7)], total symptom scores [20.5 (12.3-34.5) vs. 16 (7-28)], change in extracellular water to total body water ratios between body compartments [right leg/left arm 2.36 (1.23-4.19) vs. 1.28 (0.12-2.01), all p < 0.01] with delayed recovery, and more hemodialysis than hemodiafiltration sessions (χ2 4.6, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Sessions with prolonged recovery times were associated with more peri-dialytic symptoms, psychological distress, and hemodialysis mode, and greater changes in compartmental fluid shifts.

Effect of online hemodiafiltration on quality of life, fatigue and recovery time: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effect of bicarbonate hemodialysis and HDF on quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and time to recovery in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Searches were run on January 2024 and updated on 3 March 2024 in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE (1985 to present); Ovid EMBASE (1985 to present); Cochrane Library (Wiley); PubMed (1985 to present). Ten articles were fully assessed for eligibility and included in the investigation. Compared to HD, online HDF had a pooled MD of the mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36 of 0.98 (95% CI - 0.92, 2.87; P = 0.31). and of the physical component score (PCS) of 0.08 (95% CI - 1.32, 1.48; P = 0.91). No significant heterogeneity was observed (Chi2 = 4.85; I2 = 38%; P = 0.18 and Chi2 = 3.85; I2 = 22%; P = 0.28, respectively). Studies that compared the QoL assessed through the Kidney Disease Questionnaire or KDQOL-SF and show that HDF does not improve QoL when compared with HD, in most studies. In five out of seven studies, HDF was not significantly more effective than HD in improving fatigue. The length of the recovery time resulted in similar in patients receiving HDF and HD in all studies included in the present review. HDF is not more effective than HD in improving QoL and fatigue and in reducing the length of time of recovery after dialysis.

Intradialytic Tolerance and Recovery Time in Different High-Efficiency Hemodialysis Modalities

There are several forms of maintenance high-efficiency hemodialysis (HD), including hemodiafiltrations (HDF) in different technical modes and expanded HD, using dialyzers with medium cut-off membranes. The aim of the study was to assess the intradialytic tolerance and length of dialysis recovery time (DRT) in these modalities. This is an exploratory, crossover study in maintenance HD patients with low comorbidity and no clinical indications for the use of high-efficiency HD, who were exposed to five intermittent dialyses in random order: high-flux hemodialysis (S-HD), expanded HD (HDx), pre-dilution HDF (PRE-HDF), mix-dilution HDF (MIX-HDF) and post-dilution HDF (POST-HDF). Twenty-four dialysis sessions of each method were included in the analysis. Dialysis parameters, including blood flow rate, dialysis fluid flow rate and temperature, and pharmacological treatment were constant. Average total convection volume for post-HDF, pre-HDF and mix-HDF were 25.6 (3.8), 61.5 (7.2) and 47.1 (11.4) L, respectively. During all therapies, patients were monitored for the similarity of their hydration statuses using bioimpedance spectroscopy, and for similar variability over time in systemic blood pressure and cardiac output, while peripheral resistance was monitored using impedance cardiography. The lowest frequency of all intradialytic adverse events were observed during HDx. Delayed DRT was the shortest during PRE-HDF. Patients were also more likely to report immediate recovery while receiving PRE-HDF. These differences did not reach statistical significance; however, the study results suggest that intradialytic tolerance and DRT may depend on the dialysis method used. This supports the need of taking into account patient preferences and quality of life while individualizing high-efficiency therapy in HD patients.

Patient-reported outcomes and patient voices

Online hemodiafilration (HDF) treatment may be associated with better quality of life due to improved clearance of middle-molecular-weight uremic toxins and hemodynamic stability in dialysis patients, in addition to better overall survival.

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.