BACKGROUND: Online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) is considered to confer clinical benefits over haemodialysis (HD) in terms of solute removal in patients undergoing maintenance HD. The aim of this study was to compare postdilution OL-HDF and high-flux HD in terms of morbidity and mortality. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we enrolled 782 patients undergoing thrice-weekly HD and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to either postdilution OL-HDF or high-flux HD. The mean age of patients was 56.5 ± 13.9 years, time on HD 57.9 ± 44.6 months with a diabetes incidence of 34.7%. The follow-up period was 2 years, with the mean follow-up of 22.7 ± 10.9 months. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The major secondary outcomes were cardiovascular and overall mortality, intradialytic complications, hospitalization rate, changes in several laboratory parameters and medications used. RESULTS: The filtration volume in OL-HDF was 17.2 ± 1.3 L. Primary outcome was not different between the groups (event-free survival of 77.6% in OL-HDF versus 74.8% in the high-flux group, P = 0.28), as well as cardiovascular and overall survival, hospitalization rate and number of hypotensive episodes. In a post hoc analysis, the subgroup of OL-HDF patients treated with a median substitution volume >17.4 L per session (high-efficiency OL-HDF, n = 195) had better cardiovascular (P = 0.002) and overall survival (P = 0.03) compared with the high-flux HD group. In adjusted Cox-regression analysis, treatment with high-efficiency OL-HDF was associated with a 46% risk reduction for overall mortality {RR = 0.54 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.31-0.93], P = 0.02} and a 71% risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality [RR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.65), P = 0.003] compared with high-flux HD. CONCLUSIONS: The composite of all-cause mortality and nonfatal cardiovascular event rate was not different in the OL-HDF and in the high-flux HD groups. In a post hoc analysis, OL-HDF treatment with substitution volumes over 17.4 L was associated with better cardiovascular and overall survival.

/pdf/mortality-and-cardiovascular-events-in-online-u37alnbktr.pdf

Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study

Background and objectives: Theoretical advantages exist of online hemodiafiltration (HDF) over high-flux hemodialysis (HD), but outcome data are scarce. Our objective was to compare outcomes between these modalities. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: We studied 858 incident patients in our incremental high-flux HD and online HDF program during an 18-yr period. We compared outcomes, including survival, in those who were treated predominantly with HDF (>50% sessions) and those with high-flux HD. Survival comparisons used a Cox model taking into account the time-varying proportion of time spent on HDF. All data were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 152,043 sessions were delivered as HDF and 291,222 as high-flux HD. A total of 232 (27%) patients were treated predominantly with HDF and 626 (73%) with high-flux HD. Total Kt/V, serum albumin, erythropoietin resistance index, and BP were similar in both groups up to 5 yr after HD initiation. Intradialytic hypotension was less frequent in the predominant HDF group. Predominant HDF treatment was associated with a reduced risk for death after correction for confounding variables. In a second Cox model, proportion of time spent on HDF predicted survival, such that patients who were treated solely by HDF would have a hazard for death of 0.66 compared with those who solely used high-flux HD. Conclusions: We found no benefits of HDF over high-flux HD with respect to anemia management, nutrition, mineral metabolism, and BP control. The mortality benefit associated with HDF requires confirmation in large randomized, controlled trials. These data may contribute to their design.

/pdf/long-term-outcomes-in-online-hemodiafiltration-and-high-flux-55eqx88h7s.pdf

Long-Term Outcomes in Online Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis : A Comparative Analysis

https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(15)30278-7/pdf

Online hemodiafiltration reduces systemic inflammation compared to low-flux hemodialysis

Background
Convective dialysis modalities (haemofiltration (HF), haemodiafiltration (HDF), and acetate-free biofiltration (AFB)) removed excess body fluid across the dialysis membrane with positive pressure and accumulated middle- and larger-size accumulated solutes more efficiently than haemodialysis (HD). This increased larger solute removal combined with use of ultra-pure dialysis fluid in convective dialysis is hypothesised to reduce the frequency and severity of symptoms during dialysis as well as improve clinical outcomes. Convective dialysis therapies (HDF and HF) are associated with lower mortality compared to diffusive therapy (HD) in observational studies. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

Objectives
To compare convective (HF, HDF, or AFB) with diffusive (HD) dialysis modalities on clinical outcomes (mortality, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and treatment-related adverse events) in men and women with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 18 February 2015) through contact with a Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials comparing convective therapy (HF, HDF, AFB) with another convective therapy or diffusive therapy (HD) for treatment of ESKD.

Data collection and analysis
Two independent authors identified studies, extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects using the random effects model. We reported results as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous data together with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed for heterogeneity using the Chi2 test and explored the amount of variation in treatment estimates beyond that expected by chance using the I2 statistic.

Main results
Twenty studies comprising 667 participants were included in the 2006 review. In that review, there was insufficient evidence of treatment effects on major clinical outcomes to draw clinically meaningful conclusions. Searching to February 2015 identified 40 eligible studies comprising 3483 participants overall. In total, 35 studies (4039 participants) compared HF, HDF or AFB with HD, three studies (54 participants) compared AFB with HDF, and three studies (129 participants) compared HDF with HF.

Risks of bias in all studies were generally high resulting in low confidence in estimated treatment effects. Convective dialysis had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (11 studies, 3396 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; I2 = 34%), but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 2889 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; I2 = 0%). One study reported no significant effect on rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events (714 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.50) and two studies showed no significant difference in hospitalisation (2 studies, 1688 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.63; I2 = 0%). One study reported rates of hypotension during dialysis were significantly reduced with convective therapy (906 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80). Adverse events were not systematically evaluated in most studies and data for health-related quality of life were sparse. Convective therapies significantly reduced predialysis levels of B2 microglobulin (12 studies, 1813 participants: MD -5.55 mg/dL, 95% CI -9.11 to -1.98; I2 = 94%) and increased dialysis dose (Kt/V urea) (14 studies, 2022 participants: MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.14; I2 = 90%) compared to diffusive therapy, but results across studies were very heterogeneous. Sensitivity analyses limited to studies comparing HDF with HD showed very similar results. Directly comparative data for differing types of convective dialysis were insufficient to draw conclusions.

Studies had important risks of bias leading to low confidence in the summary estimates and were generally limited to patients who had adequate dialysis vascular access.

Authors' conclusions
Convective dialysis may reduce cardiovascular but not all-cause mortality and effects on nonfatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation are inconclusive. However, any treatment benefits of convective dialysis on all patient outcomes including cardiovascular death are unreliable due to limitations in study methods and reporting. Future studies which assess treatment effects of convection dose on patient outcomes including mortality and cardiovascular events would be informative.

Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end‐stage kidney disease

https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(15)54327-5/pdf

Hemodiafiltration: clinical evidence and remaining questions

Background: Controlled randomised studies to prove improved cardiovascular stability and improved anaemia management during on-line haemodiafiltration (oHDF) are scarce. Me

/pdf/on-line-haemodiafiltration-versus-haemodialysis-stable-3yiwifd1n0.pdf

On-Line Haemodiafiltration versus Haemodialysis: Stable Haematocrit with Less Erythropoietin and Improvement of Other Relevant Blood Parameters

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Andras Karatson

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

On-Line Haemodiafiltration versus Haemodialysis: Stable Haematocrit with Less Erythropoietin and Improvement of Other Relevant Blood Parameters