5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before July 31, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Emerging Clinical Evidence on Online Hemodiafiltration: Does Volume of Ultrafiltration Matter?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF), first described in 1985, is today a widely prescribed treatment modality for end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Other than in the United States, prescription of the treatment modality is widespread with a steady increase since its inception. Indeed, in Western Europe, more CKD patients receive OL-HDF than peritoneal dialysis, hitherto the second most prescribed therapy after conventional hemodialysis. The rise and success of OL-HDF can be attributed to diverse clinical advantages that have been documented over the last two decades. Numerous publications attest to the beneficial effects of OL-HDF in terms of removal of a broad spectrum of uremic toxin, anemia control, phosphate reduction, increased hemodynamic stability and blood pressure control and less dialysis-related amyloidosis, to mention just a few. Significantly, the improvement in these conditions is considered to contribute to improved patient outcomes. Despite the extended worldwide clinical experience, elaborate scientific validation of the principles of the therapy and technical innovations that facilitate its prescription, a point of contention is whether OL-HDF leads to a reduction of mortality rates. A number of observational and retrospective analyses have indicated a survival benefit, while prospective investigations involving small numbers of patients but nevertheless specifically addressing survival have further supplied evidence of improved survival with OL-HDF. The quest for large-scale, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials examining patient survival led to the CONTRAST and the Turkish OL-HDF trials. Both trials have been concluded and published recently. In this chapter, we document and assess the key investigations that have examined the impact of OL-HDF on patient outcome and survival. Based on the findings of previous analyses and of the two recently concluded trials, it appears that the volume of convection appears to be decisive towards the survival benefit accredited to OL-HDF. We consider the implications of this new evidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

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

          Short-term effects of online hemodiafiltration on phosphate control: a result from the randomized controlled Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST).

          Hyperphosphatemia is an independent risk factor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Phosphate control often is unsuccessful using conventional dialysis therapies. Short-term analysis of a secondary outcome of an ongoing randomized controlled trial. 493 (84%) consecutive patients from 589 patients included in the Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST) by January 2009 from 26 centers in 3 countries. Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus continuation of low-flux HD. Differences in change from baseline to 6 months in phosphate levels and proportion of patients reaching phosphate treatment targets (phosphate < or = 5.5 mg/dL). Phosphate, use of phosphate-binding agents, and proportion of patients achieving treatment targets at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Phosphate levels decreased from 5.18 +/- 0.10 (SE) mg/dL at baseline to 4.87 +/- 0.10 mg/dL at 6 months in HDF patients (P < 0.001) and were stable in HD patients (5.10 +/- 0.10 mg/dL at baseline and 5.03 +/- 0.10 mg/dL after 6 months; P = 0.5). The difference in change in phosphate levels between HD and HDF patients (B = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.03; P = 0.08) increased after adjustment for phosphate-binder use (B = -0.36; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.06; P = 0.02). The proportion of patients reaching phosphate treatment targets increased from 64% to 74% in HDF patients and was stable in HD patients (66% and 66%); the difference between groups reached statistical significance (P = 0.04). Nutritional parameters and residual renal function were similar in both treatment groups. Only predialysis serum phosphate levels were measured; phosphate clearance could therefore not be calculated. HDF may help improve phosphate control. Whether this contributes to improved clinical outcome remains to be established. Copyright 2009 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis.

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

              Patient- and treatment-related determinants of convective volume in post-dilution haemodiafiltration in clinical practice.

              Large convective volumes are recommended for online haemodiafiltration (HDF) to maximize solute removal. There has been little systematic evaluation of factors that determine convective volumes in routine clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BPU
                Blood Purif
                10.1159/issn.0253-5068
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                0253-5068
                1421-9735
                2013
                June 2013
                22 January 2013
                : 35
                : 1-3
                : 55-62
                Affiliations
                aMedical Board EMEALA, Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany; bMontpellier University I, Medical School, Montpellier, France
                Author notes
                *Prof. B. Canaud, Chairman of Medical Board EMEALA, Fresenius Medical Care, 1 Else Kröner Strasse, DE–61352 Bad Homburg (Germany), E-Mail Bernard.Canaud@fmc-ag.com
                Article
                345175 Blood Purif 2013;35:55–62
                10.1159/000345175
                23343547
                aae8241d-22e8-44cc-9da5-0841a6a7b122
                © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 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.

                History
                Page count
                Tables: 2, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Paper

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                End-stage chronic kidney disease,Renal replacement therapy,Hemodiafiltration,Convective volume,Patient outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article