Divert to ULTRA: differences in infused volumes and clearance in two on-line hemodiafiltration treatments

Digital Health Support: Current Status and Future Development for Enhancing Dialysis Patient Care and Empowering Patients

Chronic kidney disease poses a growing global health concern, as an increasing number of patients progress to end-stage kidney disease requiring kidney replacement therapy, presenting various challenges including shortage of care givers and cost-related issues. In this narrative essay, we explore innovative strategies based on in-depth literature analysis that may help healthcare systems face these challenges, with a focus on digital health technologies (DHTs), to enhance removal and ensure better control of broader spectrum of uremic toxins, to optimize resources, improve care and outcomes, and empower patients. Therefore, alternative strategies, such as self-care dialysis, home-based dialysis with the support of teledialysis, need to be developed. Managing ESKD requires an improvement in patient management, emphasizing patient education, caregiver knowledge, and robust digital support systems. The solution involves leveraging DHTs to automate HD, implement automated algorithm-driven controlled HD, remotely monitor patients, provide health education, and enable caregivers with data-driven decision-making. These technologies, including artificial intelligence, aim to enhance care quality, reduce practice variations, and improve treatment outcomes whilst supporting personalized kidney replacement therapy. This narrative essay offers an update on currently available digital health technologies used in the management of HD patients and envisions future technologies that, through digital solutions, potentially empower patients and will more effectively support their HD treatments.

Basic prerequisites for on-line, high-volume hemodiafiltration

High-volume hemodiafiltration involves filtration of >23 L/treatment and its replacement by sterile non-pyrogenic substitution fluid, while maintaining the patient's fluid balance. That volume of substitution fluid precludes the use of prepackaged sterile fluid. Instead, substitution fluid must be prepared on-line using machines that incorporate a series of bacteria- and endotoxin-retentive filters. The sterilizing ultrafilters are validated to deliver sterile, non-pyrogenic fluid to the patient when operated according to the machine manufacturer's instructions and in compliance with international standards and regulatory oversight. A successful hemodiafiltration program also places important responsibilities on the user. Specifically, the user is responsible for ensuring that the dialysis water or dialysis fluid delivered to the sterilizing filters of the hemodiafiltration machine meets the machine manufacturer's specifications and is consistent with the quality used in the sterilization validation process. The user is also responsible for ensuring that the treatment prescription allows a filtration volume >23 L/treatment to be achieved by careful selection of a dialyzer, blood flow rate and treatment time. Questions related to assurance that the substitution fluid will routinely be sterile and non-pyrogenic have limited the uptake of on-line hemodiafiltration as a therapeutic option in some countries, such as the United States.

Hemodiafiltration to Address Unmet Medical Needs ESKD Patients

Hemodiafiltration combines diffusive and convective solute removal in a single therapy by ultrafiltering 20% or more of the blood volume processed using a high-flux hemodialyzer and maintaining fluid balance by infusing sterile nonpyrogenic replacement fluid directly into the patient's blood. In online hemodiafiltration, the large volumes of replacement fluid required are obtained by online filtration of standard dialysate through a series of bacteria- and endotoxin-retaining filters. Currently available systems for online hemodiafiltration are on the basis of conventional dialysis machines with added features to safely prepare and infuse replacement fluid and closely control fluid balance. Hemodiafiltration provides greater removal of higher molecular weight uremic retention solutes than conventional high-flux hemodialysis, and recently completed randomized, controlled clinical trials suggest better patient survival with online hemodiafiltration compared with standard high-flux hemodialysis when a high convection volume is delivered. Hemodiafiltration is also associated with improvements in other clinical outcomes, such as a reduction in intradialytic hypotension, and it is now used routinely to treat >100,000 patients, mainly in Europe and Japan.

Consequences of increasing convection onto patient care and protein removal in hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent randomised controlled trials suggest that on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) improves survival, provided that it reaches high convective volumes. However, there is scant information on the feasibility and the consequences of modifying convection volumes in clinics.

METHODS

Twelve stable dialysis patients were treated with high-flux 1.8 m2 polysulphone dialyzers and 4 levels of convection flows (QUF) based on GKD-UF monitoring of the system, for 1 week each. The consequences on dialysis delivery (transmembrane pressure (TMP), number of alarms, % of achieved prescribed convection) and efficacy (mass removal of low and high molecular weight compounds) were analysed.

RESULTS

TMP increased exponentially with QUF (p<0.001 for N >56,000 monitoring values). Beyond 21 L/session, this resulted into frequent TMP alarms requiring nursing staff interventions (mean ± SEM: 10.3 ± 2.2 alarms per session, p<0.001 compared to lower convection volumes). Optimal convection volumes as assessed by GKD-UF-max were 20.6 ± 0.4 L/session, whilst 4 supplementary litres were obtained in the maximum situation (24.5 ± 0.6 L/session) but the proportion of sessions achieving the prescribed convection volume decreased from 94% to only 33% (p<0.001). Convection increased high molecular weight compound removal and shifted the membrane cut-off towards the higher molecular weight range.

CONCLUSIONS

Reaching high convection volumes as recommended by the recent RCTs (> 20L) is feasible by setting an HDF system at its optimal conditions based upon the GKD-UF monitoring. Prescribing higher convection volumes resulted in instability of the system, provoked alarms, was bothersome for the nursing staff and the patients, rarely achieved the prescribed convection volumes and increased removal of high molecular weight compounds, notably albumin.

A reliable method to assess the water permeability of a dialysis system: the global ultrafiltration coefficient

Background

Recent randomized controlled trials suggest that sufficiently high convection post-dilutional haemodiafiltration (HC-HDF) improves survival in dialysis patients, consequently this technique is increasingly being adopted. However, when performing HC-HDF, rigorous control systems of the ultrafiltration setting are required. Assessing the global ultrafiltration coefficient of the dialysis system [GKD-UF; defined as ultrafiltration rate (QUF)/transmembrane pressure] or water permeability may be adapted to the present dialysis settings and be of value in clinics.

Methods

GKD-UF was determined and its reproducibility, variability and influencing factors were specifically assessed in 15 stable patients routinely treated by high-flux haemodialysis or HC-HDF in a single unit.

Results

GKD-UF invariably followed a parabolic function with increasing QUF in dialysis and both pre- and post-dilution HC-HDF (R2 constantly >0.96). The vertex of the parabola, GKD-UF-max and related QUF were very reproducible per patient (coefficient of variation 3.9 ± 0.6 and 3.3 ± 0.3%, respectively) and they greatly varied across patients (31–42 mL/h−1/mmHg and 82–100 mL/min, respectively). GKD-UF-max and its associated QUF decreased during dialysis treatment (P < 0.01). The GKD-UF-max decrease was related to weight loss (R2 = 0.66; P = 0.0015).

Conclusions

GKD-UF is a reliable and accurate method to assess the water permeability of a system in vivo. It varies according to dialysis setting and patient-related factors. It is an objective parameter evaluating the forces driving convection and identifies any diversion of the system during the treatment procedure. It is applicable to low- or high-flux dialysis as well as pre- or post-dilution HDF. Thus, it may be used to describe the characteristics of a dialysis system, is suitable for clinical use and may be of help for personalized prescription.

Development of hemodiafiltration therapy--a historical perspective

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) was created in the late 1970s to combine the best of hemodialysis (HD) and hemofiltration, i.e. superior removal of both small and large solutes. Thus, optimal conditions for both diffusion and convection are required. The need for large volumes of sterile fluid has shaped the evolution of HDF, and regulatory issues around systems for on-line fluid preparation have delayed the clinical development of the therapy. Not until such systems became generally available in the mid-1990 s was it possible to increase the efficiency of HDF therapy to match and exceed the upgrade that had taken place for HD. Results from recent studies indicate that the potential for improving the outcome of dialysis lies in increasing the convective clearance of HDF above that of high-flux HD.