Haemodialysis
OR
Haemodifiltration?
By
Mohsen El Kossi
Consultant Renal Physician
Doncaster Royal Infirmary
Current ESRD Therapy
 Delivers 10-15% GFR equivalency
 Is pro-inflammatory
 Is intrusive on patient life-style
 Is associated with significant intradialytic
complications and interdialytic symptoms
Benjamin Burton (1976)
“Maintenancedialysis on the wholeis non-physiological
andcan bejustifiedonly because of the finiteness of its
alternative.”
Historical Background
• 1913:
– John J. Abel first dialysis attempt on animals.
• 1924:
– Georg Haas: first dialysis attempt in human, 6
patients and all died.
• 1945:
– Kolf: first 15 patients died, but the 16th, survived
after 11 hours of dialysis.
Recent Technological Advances in
RRT
High efficiency/high flux membranes
Biocompatible membranes
Alterations in internal dialyzer geometry to
increase efficiency
On-line replacement solution production
for continuous therapies for AKI or
hemofiltration for ESRD
On-line monitoring of dialysis dose and
vascular access function
Is There Any Achievement?
HD & HDF
• Introduced in 1970s (Henderson et al 1974 &
Leber et al 1978).
• It combines both diffusion and convection.
• HD: mainly diffusion, hence effective for small
size molecules (urea, electrolytes, acid base,
water correction).
• HDF: convection, middle and larger size
molecules (e.g. B2 microglobulins)
Dialysis versus Haemofiltration
Glomerular UF and HDF
IGP
1
U
U
2
U
Re-absorption
3
1
2
3
Water in HD & HDF
Technical Aspects
Dialysis Quality
• High Flux (amount of water transfer):
– Low flux: Kuf <10 mL/h/mmHg
– High flux: Kuf >20 mL/h/mmHg
– B2 microglobulin clearance of 20ml/min
• High Efficiency (urea clearance):
– Low efficiency: KoA <500 mL/min
– High efficiency: KoA >600 mL/min
– Urea clearance rate > 210 mL/min
Clearance and Survival
Once upon a time in dialysis: the
last days of Kt/V?
Vanholder et al 2015
Theoretical Advantages
of HDF
Examples of Uremic Toxins
Other Middle Molecules Cleared
by HDF
Effect of RRT on Clearance
B2 microglobulin
Anaemia and HDF
Theoretical Advantages of HDF
Clinical Evidence
HDF versus HD
Wizemann et al 2000
• HDF vs low flux HD.
• Limited number (44).
• Negative outcome (only reduction of B2
microglobulins).
Schiffl 2007
• HDF vs high flux HD.
• Limited number (76).
• Cross over RCT each modality for 24 month.
• Negative outcome in terms of mortality.
• Kt/V and B2 microglobulins were better with
HDF.
Canaud et al 2006 (DOPPS)
• Adequate number (2165).
• 4 Groups, low flux HD, low efficiency HDF, high
flux, high efficiency HDF.
• Observational study with inherent selection
bias.
• Better survival with high efficiency HDF, (RR
0.65).
Locatelli et al 2010
• HDF/HF vs low flux HD.
• Limited number (40/36/70).
• Outcome is stable intradialytic blood pressure
in convective therapy vs HD.
• Significant increase of predialysis systolic BP in
HDF compared to HD and HF (+4.2/-0.6/-1.8
mmHg).
Grootenman et al 2012
(CONTRAST Trial)
• OL-HDF vs low flux HD RCT
– Adequate number (714).
– Negative outcome in terms of all cause mortality.
– For the first time it highlighted the importance of
the convective volume (>20 litres/session).
OK et al 2012
(Turkish Trial)
• OL-HDF vs high flux HD RCT.
• Adequate number (782).
• Negative outcome.
• Highlighted again importance of convective
volume (>17.4 litres, better cardiovascular and
overall mortality).
• Selection bias (patients >17.4 L have less
diabetes, higher blood flow rate, higher serum
albumin, lower serum phosphate, lower
interdialytic weight gain).
Turkish Results
Maduell et al 2013
ESHOL Trial
• OL-HDF vs high flux HD.
• Adequate number (906).
• Positive survival advantage 30 % reduction of all cause
mortality in favour of OL-HDF.
• Convective volume >18 litres.
• Survival advantage independent of middle molecule
clearance (no difference between the 2 arms).
• OL-HDF arm with less DM, less catheters, slightly
younger, low Charlson morbidity score.
• 39% discontinued treatment.
Spanish Study
Wang et al 2014
Systematic Review
• 16 Trials including 3,220 patients.
• HDF did not reduce all cause mortality or cardiac
events significantly.
• It reduced symptomatic hypotension and B2
microglobulin level.
• No impact on small molecule clearance (Kt/V).
• Increased chances to receive a kidney transplant for
HDF patients but non significant.
• Limitations: suboptimal quality trials, underpowered,
imbalance in some prognostic variables at baseline.
• Benefits of HDF vs HD for CVS outcomes and mortality
remain unproven.
Nistor et al 2014
Systematic Review
• 35 Trials (4,039 participants).
• Convective dialysis may reduce cardiovascular
but not all-cause mortality.
• Effects on nonfatal cardiovascular events and
hospitalization are inconclusive.
• Treatment effects of convective dialysis are
unreliable due to limitations in trial methods
and reporting.
Siriopol et al 2015
HDF Romanian Experience
• Retrospective analysis incident and prevalent
HDF vs HD.
• Survival benefit in both incident and prevalent
HD. (HR 0.58 and 0.24)
• Adequate number 1546 prevalent and 2447
incident patients.
Mercadal et al 2015
HDF French Experience
• Retrospective analysis of incident HDF vs HD.
• REIN registry HDF/HD (5526/28407) from
2008-12.
• HR of all cause and cardiovascular mortality in
HDF patients 0.84 and 0.73 respectively.
OL-HDF Prevalence
• Europe: 50800/294400 (as of 2010)
• Japan: 2013: 31 371/ 314 438. (Masakane et al 2015)
• USA:
– Increased 5X over 2 years.
Prevalence of HDF in Europe by
2010
Optimal Convective Volume
• DOPPS >15 l/session (retrospective
observational study).
• Contrast and Turkish trials (subgroup analysis
survival advantage > 17 & 22 l/session).
• ESHOL > 22 l/session.
• Standardizing convective volume to body
surface area correlated well with survival
(Davenport et al 2015, Peters et al 2015).
Convective Volume & Solute Reduction
Ratio for Each Treatment Type
Minimum Convection Volume
- <20% of the processed blood volume
(high flux).
- >20% of the processed blood volume
(HDF).
- Minimum is 20 litres to achieve the
desired effect.
- High flux: UF coefficient 20ml/h/mm
Hg/m2 and sieving coefficient of 0.6 B2
microglobulin.
Effect of Blood Flow Rate
Recommendation to Obtain The
Optimal HDF Dose
(Francisco Maduell 2015)
Post versus Pre Dilution
Choice of HDF versus HD
Reasons of Not Using HDF
Barriers Against HDF
KDOQI HD Adequacy Guideline
2015 Update
Further study is needed before HDF can be
recommended.
Adequacy of Renal Replacement
Therapy
Electrolyte &
Acid/base Control
Anaemia
Status
Nutritional
status
Middle molecule
clearance
Small molecule
clearance
Adequacy
Volume Control
Blood Pressure
Control
Well Being
Quality of Life
Quality of
Sleep
Long Term
Survival
THANK YOU

Haemodialysis or Haemodifiltration? - Prof. Mohsen El Kosi

  • 1.
  • 4.
    Current ESRD Therapy Delivers 10-15% GFR equivalency  Is pro-inflammatory  Is intrusive on patient life-style  Is associated with significant intradialytic complications and interdialytic symptoms
  • 5.
    Benjamin Burton (1976) “Maintenancedialysison the wholeis non-physiological andcan bejustifiedonly because of the finiteness of its alternative.”
  • 6.
    Historical Background • 1913: –John J. Abel first dialysis attempt on animals. • 1924: – Georg Haas: first dialysis attempt in human, 6 patients and all died. • 1945: – Kolf: first 15 patients died, but the 16th, survived after 11 hours of dialysis.
  • 7.
    Recent Technological Advancesin RRT High efficiency/high flux membranes Biocompatible membranes Alterations in internal dialyzer geometry to increase efficiency On-line replacement solution production for continuous therapies for AKI or hemofiltration for ESRD On-line monitoring of dialysis dose and vascular access function
  • 8.
    Is There AnyAchievement?
  • 9.
    HD & HDF •Introduced in 1970s (Henderson et al 1974 & Leber et al 1978). • It combines both diffusion and convection. • HD: mainly diffusion, hence effective for small size molecules (urea, electrolytes, acid base, water correction). • HDF: convection, middle and larger size molecules (e.g. B2 microglobulins)
  • 10.
  • 11.
    Glomerular UF andHDF IGP 1 U U 2 U Re-absorption 3 1 2 3
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
    Dialysis Quality • HighFlux (amount of water transfer): – Low flux: Kuf <10 mL/h/mmHg – High flux: Kuf >20 mL/h/mmHg – B2 microglobulin clearance of 20ml/min • High Efficiency (urea clearance): – Low efficiency: KoA <500 mL/min – High efficiency: KoA >600 mL/min – Urea clearance rate > 210 mL/min
  • 15.
  • 16.
    Once upon atime in dialysis: the last days of Kt/V? Vanholder et al 2015
  • 17.
  • 18.
  • 19.
    Other Middle MoleculesCleared by HDF
  • 20.
    Effect of RRTon Clearance
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
  • 24.
  • 25.
    Wizemann et al2000 • HDF vs low flux HD. • Limited number (44). • Negative outcome (only reduction of B2 microglobulins).
  • 26.
    Schiffl 2007 • HDFvs high flux HD. • Limited number (76). • Cross over RCT each modality for 24 month. • Negative outcome in terms of mortality. • Kt/V and B2 microglobulins were better with HDF.
  • 27.
    Canaud et al2006 (DOPPS) • Adequate number (2165). • 4 Groups, low flux HD, low efficiency HDF, high flux, high efficiency HDF. • Observational study with inherent selection bias. • Better survival with high efficiency HDF, (RR 0.65).
  • 28.
    Locatelli et al2010 • HDF/HF vs low flux HD. • Limited number (40/36/70). • Outcome is stable intradialytic blood pressure in convective therapy vs HD. • Significant increase of predialysis systolic BP in HDF compared to HD and HF (+4.2/-0.6/-1.8 mmHg).
  • 29.
    Grootenman et al2012 (CONTRAST Trial) • OL-HDF vs low flux HD RCT – Adequate number (714). – Negative outcome in terms of all cause mortality. – For the first time it highlighted the importance of the convective volume (>20 litres/session).
  • 31.
    OK et al2012 (Turkish Trial) • OL-HDF vs high flux HD RCT. • Adequate number (782). • Negative outcome. • Highlighted again importance of convective volume (>17.4 litres, better cardiovascular and overall mortality). • Selection bias (patients >17.4 L have less diabetes, higher blood flow rate, higher serum albumin, lower serum phosphate, lower interdialytic weight gain).
  • 32.
  • 33.
    Maduell et al2013 ESHOL Trial • OL-HDF vs high flux HD. • Adequate number (906). • Positive survival advantage 30 % reduction of all cause mortality in favour of OL-HDF. • Convective volume >18 litres. • Survival advantage independent of middle molecule clearance (no difference between the 2 arms). • OL-HDF arm with less DM, less catheters, slightly younger, low Charlson morbidity score. • 39% discontinued treatment.
  • 34.
  • 35.
    Wang et al2014 Systematic Review • 16 Trials including 3,220 patients. • HDF did not reduce all cause mortality or cardiac events significantly. • It reduced symptomatic hypotension and B2 microglobulin level. • No impact on small molecule clearance (Kt/V). • Increased chances to receive a kidney transplant for HDF patients but non significant. • Limitations: suboptimal quality trials, underpowered, imbalance in some prognostic variables at baseline. • Benefits of HDF vs HD for CVS outcomes and mortality remain unproven.
  • 36.
    Nistor et al2014 Systematic Review • 35 Trials (4,039 participants). • Convective dialysis may reduce cardiovascular but not all-cause mortality. • Effects on nonfatal cardiovascular events and hospitalization are inconclusive. • Treatment effects of convective dialysis are unreliable due to limitations in trial methods and reporting.
  • 37.
    Siriopol et al2015 HDF Romanian Experience • Retrospective analysis incident and prevalent HDF vs HD. • Survival benefit in both incident and prevalent HD. (HR 0.58 and 0.24) • Adequate number 1546 prevalent and 2447 incident patients.
  • 38.
    Mercadal et al2015 HDF French Experience • Retrospective analysis of incident HDF vs HD. • REIN registry HDF/HD (5526/28407) from 2008-12. • HR of all cause and cardiovascular mortality in HDF patients 0.84 and 0.73 respectively.
  • 39.
    OL-HDF Prevalence • Europe:50800/294400 (as of 2010) • Japan: 2013: 31 371/ 314 438. (Masakane et al 2015) • USA: – Increased 5X over 2 years.
  • 40.
    Prevalence of HDFin Europe by 2010
  • 41.
    Optimal Convective Volume •DOPPS >15 l/session (retrospective observational study). • Contrast and Turkish trials (subgroup analysis survival advantage > 17 & 22 l/session). • ESHOL > 22 l/session. • Standardizing convective volume to body surface area correlated well with survival (Davenport et al 2015, Peters et al 2015).
  • 42.
    Convective Volume &Solute Reduction Ratio for Each Treatment Type
  • 43.
    Minimum Convection Volume -<20% of the processed blood volume (high flux). - >20% of the processed blood volume (HDF). - Minimum is 20 litres to achieve the desired effect. - High flux: UF coefficient 20ml/h/mm Hg/m2 and sieving coefficient of 0.6 B2 microglobulin.
  • 44.
    Effect of BloodFlow Rate
  • 45.
    Recommendation to ObtainThe Optimal HDF Dose (Francisco Maduell 2015)
  • 46.
  • 47.
    Choice of HDFversus HD
  • 48.
    Reasons of NotUsing HDF
  • 49.
  • 50.
    KDOQI HD AdequacyGuideline 2015 Update Further study is needed before HDF can be recommended.
  • 51.
    Adequacy of RenalReplacement Therapy Electrolyte & Acid/base Control Anaemia Status Nutritional status Middle molecule clearance Small molecule clearance Adequacy Volume Control Blood Pressure Control Well Being Quality of Life Quality of Sleep Long Term Survival
  • 52.

Editor's Notes

  • #11 Before we discuss dialysis quality, what are methods of waste clearance? Dialysis and filtration, diffusion and conviction, osmotic gradient and pressure gradient.