Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

Rabindranath, Kannaiyan S; Strippoli, Giovanni F.M.; Daly, Conal; Roderick, Paul; Wallace, S; MacLeod, Alison Murray

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006258

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,13,19,20 In certain studies, patients on HDF had better quality of life, 20 but in other, there were no significant difference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…16,17 The results of previous studies that evaluated the possible clinical advantages of HDF in comparison with HD are not consistent, and it is not possible to make any precise conclusion out of them. [17][18][19][20][21] Compared with low-flux dialysis, high-flux HD might have a beneficial effect on mortality and clinical outcomes in the patients [22][23][24][25][26][27] or not. 28 The use of synthetic high-flux membranes should be considered to delay the longterm complication of HD therapy: amyloidosis, hyperphosphatemia, cardiovascular risk, and anemia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Dialysis Modality and Membrane Flux on Quality of Life in Hemodialysis Patients

Knežević¹,

Djordjević²,

Radovanovic-Velickovic³

et al. 2012

Renal Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The quality of life in patients undergoing hemodialysis is significantly disturbed. There are data that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may be more effective than conventional hemodialysis in the removal of uremic toxins and may reduce frequency and severity of intradialytic and postdialysis adverse symptoms in patients. Also, some researchers suggest advantages of using high-flux membranes compared with low-flux. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether hemodialysis modality and membrane flux, independent of membrane biocompatibility, make differences in quality of life in patients. Methods: In our cross-sectional study, we evaluated 124 patients who were divided, based on therapy, into three groups: online HDF, high-flux hemodialysis, and low-flux hemodialysis. Data were collected using the Short Form-36 questionnaire combined with special questionnaire, which included demographic and clinically related questions. Results: Health-related quality of life was better in patients on HDF compared with patients on hemodialysis, especially compared with low-flux hemodialysis patients in most of the scales and in both dimensions: physical component scale and mental component scale. There were no statistically significant differences in Short Form-36 domains between high-flux hemodialysis and low-flux hemodialysis. Conclusion: Our data suggest the potential advantages of HDF with regard to influence on quality of life, which is sufficient to justify further research in prospective and longitudinal study design.

show abstract

“…12,13,19,20 In certain studies, patients on HDF had better quality of life, 20 but in other, there were no significant difference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Dialysis Modality and Membrane Flux on Quality of Life in Hemodialysis Patients

Knežević¹,

Djordjević²,

Radovanovic-Velickovic³

et al. 2012

Renal Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ESHOL Study cited above was included in the review. The review followed up an earlier one (Rabindranath et al 2006) which was funded by the National Kidney Research Fund (UK) which concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend HDF therapies as opposed to conventional HD. The studies reviewed by Nistor et al were very heterogeneous and prone to selection bias arising out of patient suitability issues.…”

Section: Hdf Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the evidence for the use of haemodiafiltration

Dainton

2017

Journal of Kidney Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are supported with maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and this has been the case for many years. Recent improvements in water quality have led to the increased use of high-flux HD and more recently of online-haemodiafiltration (HDF). HDF has been promoted by some clinicians and by renal industry as potentially offering improved clinical and quality of life outcomes for patients over conventional HD. However, despite such benefits making theoretical sense very few studies of the use of HDF as compared to HD (especially high-flux HD) have been able to demonstrate any significant benefit for the therapy. This article reviews the most recent research that has compared HDF and HD and has identified that the evidence for the benefit of HDF remains elusive. This article, therefore, concludes that there is currently still not sufficient evidence from the research to support the contention that HDF confers benefits to patients over conventional HD and thereby no compelling evidence to justify its widespread use as a preferred form of treatment.

show abstract

“…Mortality results were available only in 4 trials (336 patients) and different therapies were mixed (AFB, HF, and HDF). The authors found no difference in mortality risk for patients treated with convective-based therapies [26,65]. This systematic review was severely criticized due to its poor methodology [66,67].…”

Section: Meta-analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Update on Clinical Evidence Supporting Hemodiafiltration

Canaud¹,

Grassmann²,

Scatizzi³

et al. 2016

Advances in Hemodiafiltration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this chapter is to define hemodiafiltration target efficiency, to clarify the concept of "optimal convective dose," and to facilitate hemodiafiltration (HDF) implementation in clinical practice by addressing the need for the establishment of best clinical practices for HDF. The approach taken was to conduct a comprehensive summary of clinical evidence supporting HDF. Convective dose is the total ultrafiltered volume and is complementary to diffusive dose (urea Kt/V) as a dose-dependent parameter. It can be quantified and adjusted to patient characteristics. Factors affecting convective dose are discussed: patient characteristics, prescription-dependent factors, and technical and machine-dependent factors. The key issue of HDF prescription and implementation of best practices is addressed as are intermediary and endpoint clinical outcomes. The main messages are as follows: (1) HDF is safe and effective provided that best clinical practices are followed and the right convective dose is delivered; (2) HDF is easy to perform with new technology; and (3) depending on the convection volume, HDF reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Open challenges remain, namely, the implementation of best practices to (a) achieve optimal convection volume, (b) define patient subsets that would benefit more from HDF, and (c) evaluate new tools that fine-tune HDF prescription according to individual patient needs.

show abstract

Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

Cited by 34 publications

References 66 publications

Influence of Dialysis Modality and Membrane Flux on Quality of Life in Hemodialysis Patients

Influence of Dialysis Modality and Membrane Flux on Quality of Life in Hemodialysis Patients

A review of the evidence for the use of haemodiafiltration

Update on Clinical Evidence Supporting Hemodiafiltration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About