+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment with Haemodiafiltration Stabilises Vascular Stiffness (Measured by Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity) Compared to Haemodialysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background/Aims: Cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke are increased in dialysis patients, and haemodiafiltration has been reported to reduce cerebrovascular mortality compared to haemodialysis. We wished to determine whether haemodiafiltration improves arterial stiffness. Methods: We audited aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurements 6 months apart in 3 cohorts of patients: 69 treated with haemodialysis, 78 who converted from haemodialysis to haemodiafiltration and 142 treated with haemodiafiltration. Results: Cohorts were well matched for age (means ± SD: haemodialysis 64 ± 15 years vs. haemodialysis to haemodiafiltration 64 ± 17 years vs. haemodiafiltration 67 ± 16 years), sex (male 65 vs. 59 vs. 63%), diabetes (45 vs. 56.4 vs. 44%) and body mass index (26 ± 6 vs. 26 ± 5 vs. 26 ± 5), respectively. Systolic blood pressure did not differ over time (haemodialysis 143 ± 25 vs. 146 ± 27 mm Hg, haemodialysis to haemodiafiltration 153 ± 26 vs. 154 ± 25 mm Hg, haemodiafiltration 149 ± 31 vs. 148 ± 30 mm Hg) or between groups. Aortic PWV significantly increased in the haemodialysis group (9.5 ± 1.9 vs. 10.2 ± 2.2 m/s, p < 0.01) and haemodialysis to haemodiafiltration group (9.4 ± 1.9 vs. 10.1 ± 2.2 m/s, p < 0.01), but did not change with haemodiafiltration (9.9 ± 2.1 vs. 10.1 ± 2.2 m/s). Conclusions: Aortic PWV, a measure of vascular stiffness, stabilised with haemodiafiltration. Our preliminary findings require further investigation to determine how haemodiafiltration may potentially improve vascular stiffness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Invasive validation of a new oscillometric device (Arteriograph) for measuring augmentation index, central blood pressure and aortic pulse wave velocity.

          The importance of measuring aortic pulse wave velocity (PWVao), aortic augmentation index (Aix) and central systolic blood pressure (SBPao) has been shown under different clinical conditions; however, information on these parameters is hard to obtain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new, easily applicable oscillometric device (Arteriograph), determining these parameters simultaneously, against invasive measurements. Aortic Aix, SBPao and PWVao were measured invasively during cardiac catheterization in 16, 55 and 22 cases, respectively, and compared with the values measured by the Arteriograph. We found strong correlation between the invasively measured aortic Aix and the oscillometrically measured brachial Aix on either beat-to-beat or mean value per patient basis (r = 0.9, P < 0.001; r = 0.94, P < 0.001), which allowed the noninvasive calculation of the aortic Aix without using generalized transfer function. Similarly strong correlation (r = 0.95, P < 0.001) was found between the invasively measured and the noninvasively calculated central SBPao; furthermore, the BHS assessment of the paired differences fulfilled the 'B' grading. The PWVao values measured invasively and by Arteriograph were 9.41 ± 1.8 m/s and 9.46 ± 1.8 m/s, respectively (mean ± SD); furthermore, the Pearson's correlation was 0.91 (P < 0.001). The limits of agreement were 11.4% for aortic Aix and 1.59 m/s for PWVao. Aix, SBPao and PWVao, measured oscillometrically, showed strong correlation with the invasively obtained values. The observed limits of agreement are encouragingly low for accepting the method for clinical use. Our results suggest that the PWVao values, measured by Arteriograph, are close to the true aortic PWV, determined invasively.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Determinants of progression of aortic stiffness in hemodialysis patients: a prospective longitudinal study.

            Aortic stiffness is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, the rate of progression of arterial stiffness and the role of cardiovascular risk factors in the progression of arterial stiffness has never been established in a longitudinal study. In a prospective, longitudinal, observational study, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and carotid-radial pulse wave velocity were assessed in 109 hemodialysis patients at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 1.2 years. We examined the impact of age, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, dialysis vintage, and pentosidine (a well-characterized, advanced glycation end products) on the rate of progression of aortic stiffness. The annual rate of changes in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and carotid-radial pulse wave velocity were 0.84 m/s per year (95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.12 m/s per year) and -0.66 m/s per year (95% confidence interval, -0.85 to -0.47 m/s per year), respectively. Older subjects, and patients with diabetes mellitus or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease had higher aortic stiffness at baseline, however, the rate of progression of aortic stiffness was only determined by plasma pentosidine levels (P=0.001). The degree of baseline aortic stiffness was a significant determinant of the regression of brachial stiffness (P<0.001) suggesting that the regression of brachial stiffness occurs in response to central aortic stiffness. These findings suggest that traditional cardiovascular risk factors may play some role in the progression of aortic stiffness before development of advanced chronic kidney disease, and that the enhanced rate of progression of aortic stiffness in chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis are probably determined by more specific chronic kidney disease-related risk factors such as advanced-glycation end products.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of dialysis modality on phosphate control : haemodialysis compared to haemodiafiltration. The Pan Thames Renal Audit.

              Hyperphosphataemia is a primary risk factor for patients with end-stage kidney failure. Phosphate clearance by traditional thrice-weekly standard haemodialysis is inadequate for patients achieving recommended dietary protein goals. We investigated whether phosphate control was improved by adding convective clearance with haemodiafiltration. We audited pre-midweek session calcium and phosphate levels in 5366 adult patients, 4515 treated by haemodialysis and 851 by on-line haemodiafiltration. The cohorts were similar for age, sex and dialysis vintage. Serum phosphate was lower in the haemodiafiltration cohort (1.42 +/- 0.61 mmol/l) compared to the haemodialysis cohort (1.53 +/- 0.53 mmol/l; P < 0.001), as was the calcium-phosphate product (3.31 +/- 1.53 vs 3.5 +/- 1.33 mmol(2)/l(2), respectively; P < 0.001) despite a shorter treatment session time (3.68 +/- 0.44 vs 3.92 +/- 0.49 h; P < 0.001). Parathyroid hormone levels were similar. The results of this audit suggest that haemodiafiltration offers improved phosphate control compared to standard intermittent haemodialysis.

                Author and article information

                Nephron Clin Pract
                Nephron Clinical Practice
                S. Karger AG
                December 2014
                06 November 2014
                : 128
                : 1-2
                : 185-191
                Centre for Nephrology, Royal Free Hospital, University College London Medical School, London, UK
                Author notes
                *Andrew Davenport, FRCP, Centre for Nephrology, Royal Free Hospital, University College London Medical School, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF (UK), E-Mail
                368242 Nephron Clin Pract 2014;128:185-191
                © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Open Access License: This is an Open Access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC) (, applicable to the online version of the article only. Distribution permitted for non-commercial purposes only. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 7
                Original Paper


                Comment on this article