NDT Advance Access published online on March 8, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm023
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New strategies in haemodiafiltration (HDF): prospective comparative analysis between on-line mixed HDF and mid-dilution HDF
Nephrology and Dialysis Department, Bolognini Hospital, Seriate, Bergamo, Italy
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Luciano A. Pedrini, Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale Bolognini, 24068–SERIATE–Italy. Email: nefrologia.seriate{at}bolognini.bg.it
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Background. Improvement in the uraemic toxicity profile obtained with the application of convective and mixed dialysis techniques has stimulated the development of more efficient strategies. Our study was a prospective randomized evaluation of the clinical and technical characteristics of two new haemodiafiltration (HDF) strategies, mixed HDF and mid-dilution HDF, which have recently been proposed with the aim of increasing efficiency and safety with respect to the standard traditional HDF infusion modes.
Methods. Ten stable patients on renal replacement therapy (mean age 64.7 ± 8.2 years) were submitted in randomized sequence to one mid-week session of mid-dilution HDF and one of mixed HDF with trans-membrane pressure feedback control. All sessions were carried out under
similar operating conditions and involved monitoring pressure within the internal dialyser compartments and calculating the rheological and hydraulic indexes. Efficiency in removing urea, phosphate and ß2-microglobulin (ß2-m) was tested.
Results. In mixed HDF, safer and more effective flux/pressure conditions resulted in better preservation of the hydraulic and solute membrane permeability (mean in vivo ultrafiltration coefficient 36.9 ± 3.9 vs 20.1 ± 3.3 ml/h/mmHg) and ensured higher volume exchange (38.7 ± 4.2 vs 35.3 ± 6.5 l/session, P = 0.02) and greater efficiency in removing small and middle molecules (mean urea clearance: 274 ± 42 vs 264 ± 47 ml/min, P = 0.028; eKt/V: 1.78 ± 0.22 vs 1.71 ± 0.26, P = 0.036; mean phosphate clearance: 138 ± 16 vs 116 ± 45 ml/min, P = 0.2; mean ß2-m clearance: 81 ± 13 vs 59 ± 13 ml/min, P = 0.001).
Conclusions. Mixed HDF was the most efficient technique in the highest range of safe operating conditions. In mid-dilution HDF, high pressures generated inside the dialyser compromised membrane permeability and limited the total infusion rate, resulting in an overall reduction in solute removal.
Keywords: haemodiafiltration; membranepermeability; mid-dilution HDF; mixed HDF; phosphate; ß2-microglobulin
Received for publication: 18. 9.06
Accepted in revised form: 8. 1.07
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. A. Pedrini, A. Feliciani, S. Zerbi, G. Cozzi, and P. Ruggiero Optimization of mid-dilution haemodiafiltration: technique and performance Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2009; 24(9): 2816 - 2824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Krieter and B. Canaud New strategies in haemodialfiltration (HDF)--prospective comparative analysis between online mixed HDF and mid-dilution HDF Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 1465 - 1466. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Feliciani and L. A. Pedrini Reply Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 1466 - 1466. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|