Related Experiment Videos
[On-line sequential hemodiafiltration (HDF-OL-S): a new therapeutic option]
J Kanter1, M Carretero Puerta, R Pérez García
1Servicio de Nefrología, Unidad de Hemodiálisis, Hospital G. U. Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, España. jkanter@senefro.org
Background:
on line haemodiafiltration provides the greatest clearance for low and high-molecular weight uremic toxins, which is associated with a lower risk of mortality in our patients. Nowadays, there's increasing evidence about the need of achieving at least 20 litters ultrafiltration in postdilution mode and 70% reduction of beta-2-Microglobulin (B2M), however it requires a vascular access's high blood flow. Unfortunately, we do not succeed in these objectives because of our patients being older, diabetic and with poor vascular access; in this situation high blood flows are more difficult to get at the expense of lower post-dilution exchange volumes. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of OL-S-HDF to obtain an equivalent ultrafiltration volume as 20 L in OL-postdilution-HDF (OL-P-HDF). OL-S-HDF initially begins in postdilution mode changing to predilution once the transmembrane pressure (TMP) reached 250 mmHg.
Methods:
we performed one high-flux HD session (HF-HD), one OL-P-HDF session and one OL-S-HDF session in each of the 16 adult patients who participated during 3 consecutive weeks. We compared the clearance rates of low and middle molecules such as urea, creatinine, B2M, myoglobulin and levels of albumin and haematocrit between the 3 different techniques. We measured the pre-filter pressure (PFP) by a manometer set before the dialyzer.
Results:
The main characteristics of the sessions are described in table N1. There wasn't significant difference in Kt/V, urea and creatinine removal between the three techniques. B2M and myoglobulin's clearance rates were significantly higher in both hemodiafiltration modes than in HF-HD (p=0.000), however we didn't find differences between OL-P-HDF and OL-S-HDF. There was a direct correlation between PFP and TMP along the sessions in every technique (p<0.05). We found that PFP was better than TMP to correlate with pre-dialysis levels of albumin and haematocrit and also with the haemoconcentration percentage at the end of the sessions.
Conclusions:
This study confirms that OL-S-HDF is as good as OL-P-HDF and it could be a useful technique to treat patients with suboptimal access's blood flow to get to achieve ultrafiltration volumes within the objectives. PFP could offer extra information than TMP.
Related Concept Videos
Extracorporeal Removal of Drugs: Hemoperfusion and Hemofiltration
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications
Extracorporeal Removal of Drugs: Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis
Extracorporeal Removal of Drugs: Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy