Dialyzer Classification and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients: A 3-Year Nationwide Cohort Study

Most recently developed polyester polymer alloy dialyzer: A new medium cut-off membrane?

BACKGROUND

New versions of the polyester polymer alloy (PEPA) membrane have appeared over the years, with increases in both the pore size and the amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to optimize hydrophilicity performance. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the most recently developed PEPA dialyzer, the FDY series, in hemodialysis (HD) modality in terms of uremic toxin removal and albumin loss and to compare it with that of several high-flux dialyzers currently used in HD and post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments.

METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in 21 patients. All patients underwent six dialysis sessions with the same routine dialysis parameters; only the dialyzer and/or the dialysis modality varied: FX80 in HD, FDY 180 in HD, Clearum HS17 in HDF, Elisio 19H in HDF, Vitapes 180 in HDF, and FX80 in post-dilution HDF. The reduction ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2-microglobulin, myoglobin, κFLC, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, α1-acid glycoprotein, λFLC, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured.

RESULTS

Both membranes FDY and FX80 are high-flux dialyzers and are applied here in high-flux HD. The average RR of β2-microglobulin was slightly lower in the two HD treatments than in the HDF treatments. Comparison of dialysis treatments revealed that the PEPA FDY dialyzer in the HD modality was more effective than the FX80 dialyzer in high-flux HD and was as effective as post-dilution HDF, especially in terms of myoglobin, κFLC, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, and λFLC RRs. The FDY treatments obtained similar albumin RR in blood and slightly higher dialysate albumin loss, although the values were clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The most recently developed PEPA dialyzers in the HD modality were as effective as all treatments in the HDF modality and were clearly superior to high-flux helixone HD treatment. These results confirm that this dialyzer should be categorized within the medium cut-off (MCO) membrane classification.

Current dialyzer classification in Japan and mortality risk in patients undergoing hemodialysis

Dialyzers are classified into five types based on their β2-microglobulin clearance rate and albumin sieving coefficient: Ia, Ib, IIa, and IIb. In addition, a new classification system introduced a type S dialyzer. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of dialyzer type on patient outcomes. A cohort study was conducted using data from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Renal Data Registry database. Total 181,804 patients on hemodialysis (HD) were included in the study, categorized into four groups (type Ia, IIa, IIb, and S). The associations between each group and two-year all-cause mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. Furthermore, propensity score-matching analysis was performed. By the end of 2019, 34,185 patients on dialysis had died. After adjusting for all confounders, the risk for all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the type IIa, and S groups than in the type Ia group. These significant findings were consistent after propensity score matching. In conclusion, our findings suggest that super high-flux dialyzers, with a β2-microglobulin clearance of ≥ 70 mL/min, may be beneficial for patients on HD, regardless of their albumin sieving coefficient. In addition, type S dialyzers may be beneficial for elderly and malnourished patients on dialysis.Trial registration number: UMIN000018641.

How should we treat acute kidney injury caused by renal congestion?

Decreased kidney function is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality, and heart failure (HF) is a wellknown risk factor for renal dysfunction. Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with HF often is attributed to prerenal factors, such as renal hypoperfusion and ischemia as a result of decreased cardiac output. Another such factor is reduction of absolute or relative circulating blood volume, with the decrease in renal blood flow leading to renal hypoxia followed by a decrease in the glomerular filtration rate. However, renal congestion is increasingly being recognized as a potential cause of AKI in patients with HF. Increased central venous pressure and renal venous pressure lead to increased renal interstitial hydrostatic pressure and a reduction of the glomerular filtration rate. Both decreased kidney function and renal congestion have been shown to be important prognostic factors of HF, and adequate control of congestion is important for improving kidney function. Loop and thiazide diuretics are recommended as standard therapies to reduce volume overload. However, these agents are associated with worsening renal function even though they are effective for improving congestive symptoms. There is growing interest in tolvaptan, which can improve renal congestion by increasing excretion of free water and decreasing the required dose of loop diuretic, thereby improving kidney function. This review summarizes renal hemodynamics, the pathogenesis of AKI due to renal ischemia and renal congestion, and diagnosis and treatment options for renal congestion.

Expanded hemodialysis: what's up, Doc?

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in expanded hemodialysis (HDx), an emerging renal replacement therapy based on the use of medium cut-off membranes (MCO). Thanks to the internal architecture of these types of membranes, with a higher pore size and smaller fiber inner diameter to favor internal filtration rate, they can increase the removal of larger middle molecules in conventional hemodialysis. Secondarily, several reports suggest that this therapy potentially improve the outcomes for end-stage renal disease patients. However, HDx has not been defined yet and the characteristics of MCO membranes are not well stablished. The aim of this narrative review is to define HDx and summarize the dialyzers that have been used so far to perform this therapy, collect the evidence available on its efficacy and clinical outcomes compared with other hemodialysis techniques and settle the bases for its optimal prescription.

Systematic review to compare the outcomes associated with the modalities of expanded hemodialysis (HDx) versus high-flux hemodialysis and/or hemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)

BACKGROUND

This systematic review was performed to identify recent published comparative evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of expanded hemodialysis (HDx) versus high-flux HD and/or hemodiafiltration (HDF) for long-term outcomes in end-stage kidney disease.

METHODS

Systematic literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Medline, Medline® Epub Ahead of Print, EconLit, Embase, and EBM reviews were searched to identify relevant publications from 2013 onwards. Eligibility criteria included clinical studies reporting mortality, hospitalizations, cardiovascular outcomes, economic evaluations, cost studies, and quality of life (QoL) studies.

RESULTS

A total of 79 relevant studies were identified with 29 prioritized for detailed analysis; four compared HDx to HD, one compared HDF and HDx, and 24 compared HDF with HD. A total of 13 randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based studies were identified; 11 compared HDF with HD, one compared HDx with HD, and one compared HDF with HDx. Follow-up duration ranged from 16 weeks to 7 years for HDF studies and from 12 weeks to 1 year for HDx studies. HDF showed significant improvements in mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hospitalizations, and QoL versus high-flux HD. One study reported mortality outcomes for HDx and found no difference versus HDF. QoL benefits with HDx were reported in a small number of studies.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of HDF is supported by a robust evidence base that includes several RCTs. While HDx may offer benefits over high-flux HD, long-term studies are required to compare HDx with online high volume HDF.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022301009.

Dialyzer surface area is a significant predictor of mortality in patients on hemodialysis: a 3-year nationwide cohort study

A target Kt/V of > 1.4 and use of a high-flux dialyzer are recommended for patients on hemodialysis. However, there is little information on the relationship between the dialyzer surface area and mortality in these patients. In this nationwide cohort study, we aimed to clarify this relationship by analyzing data from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy for 2010–2013. We enrolled 234,638 patients on hemodialysis who were divided according to quartile for dialyzer surface area into the S group (small, < 1.5 m²), M group (medium, 1.5 m²), L group (large, 1.6 to < 2.0 m²), or XL group (extra-large, ≥ 2.0 m²). We assessed the association of each group with 3-year mortality using Cox proportional hazards models and performed propensity score matching analysis. By the end of 2013, a total of 53,836 patients on dialysis (22.9%) had died. There was a significant decrease in mortality with larger dialyzer surface areas. The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was significantly higher in the S group (1.15 [1.12–1.19], P < 0.0001) and significantly lower in the L group (0.89 [0.87–0.92] P < 0.0001) and XL group (0.75 [0.72–0.78], P < 0.0001) than in the M group as a reference after adjustment for all confounders. Findings were robust in several sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the findings remained significant after propensity score matching. Hemodialysis using dialyzers, especially super high-flux dialyzers with a larger surface area might reduce mortality rates, and a surface area of ≥ 2.0 m² is superior, even with the same Kt/V.