UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Chronic intermittent high-volume hemodiafiltration

Authors
Muriel PC Grooteman, MD, PhD
Peter J Blankestijn, MD
Section Editor
Paul M Palevsky, MD
Deputy Editor
Alice M Sheridan, MD

INTRODUCTION

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) is a form of renal replacement therapy that utilizes convective in combination with diffusive clearance, which is used in standard hemodialysis. Compared with standard hemodialysis, HDF removes more middle-molecular-weight solutes. Some, though not all, studies have suggested that HDF is associated with improved clinical outcomes, providing adequate convection volumes are achieved.

However, HDF is more complex than standard hemodialysis and places increased demands on the user and outpatient dialysis center. HDF is not available in the United States. In Europe, Japan, and some other countries where HDF is available, most clinicians use a specific type of HDF termed online HDF. In online HDF, the substitution fluid is produced by the dialysis machine, which enables large convection volumes.

The use of chronic maintenance HDF requires changes in infrastructure in outpatient dialysis units. Decisions to implement such changes are made on a corporate level, although, when HDF is available in a given center, the practicing clinician can decide to perform either HDF or standard hemodialysis in individual patients. Indications for HDF in individual patients have not been identified. The possible beneficial effect of online HDF on survival is consistent in different patient groups (including age, gender, dialysis vintage, absence or presence of residual kidney function, diabetes) [1].

This topic reviews dosing recommendations and clinical outcomes for HDF.

The technical aspects of HDF, including established guidelines for its implementation, are discussed elsewhere. (See "Technical aspects of hemodiafiltration".)

                 

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: May 2017. | This topic last updated: Dec 01, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Peters SA, Bots ML, Canaud B, et al. Haemodiafiltration and mortality in end-stage kidney disease patients: a pooled individual participant data analysis from four randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2016; 31:978.
  2. Grooteman MP, van den Dorpel MA, Bots ML, et al. Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012; 23:1087.
  3. Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M, et al. High-efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 24:487.
  4. Ok E, Asci G, Toz H, et al. Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013; 28:192.
  5. Canaud B, Bragg-Gresham JL, Marshall MR, et al. Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: European results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2006; 69:2087.
  6. Jirka T, Cesare S, Di Benedetto A, et al. Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2006; 70:1524; author reply 1524.
  7. Mercadal L, Franck JE, Metzger M, et al. Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis and Survival in Patients With ESRD: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) Registry. Am J Kidney Dis 2016; 68:247.
  8. Panichi V, Rizza GM, Paoletti S, et al. Chronic inflammation and mortality in haemodialysis: effect of different renal replacement therapies. Results from the RISCAVID study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23:2337.
  9. Siriopol D, Canaud B, Stuard S, et al. New insights into the effect of haemodiafiltration on mortality: the Romanian experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30:294.
  10. Vilar E, Fry AC, Wellsted D, et al. Long-term outcomes in online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: a comparative analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 4:1944.
  11. Maduell F, Moreso F, Mora-Macià J, et al. ESHOL study reanalysis: All-cause mortality considered by competing risks and time-dependent covariates for renal transplantation. Nefrologia 2016; 36:156.
  12. Davenport A, Peters SA, Bots ML, et al. Higher convection volume exchange with online hemodiafiltration is associated with survival advantage for dialysis patients: the effect of adjustment for body size. Kidney Int 2016; 89:193.
  13. Nubé MJ, Peters SAE, Blankestijn PJ, et al. Mortality reduction by post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration: a cause-specific analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017; 32:548.
  14. Greene T, Daugirdas J, Depner T, et al. Association of achieved dialysis dose with mortality in the hemodialysis study: an example of "dose-targeting bias". J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16:3371.
  15. Chapdelaine I, Mostovaya IM, Blankestijn PJ, et al. Treatment policy rather than patient characteristics determines convection volume in online post-dilution hemodiafiltration. Blood Purif 2014; 37:229.
  16. Penne EL, van der Weerd NC, Bots ML, et al. Patient- and treatment-related determinants of convective volume in post-dilution haemodiafiltration in clinical practice. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24:3493.
  17. Nube MJ. Why is high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration associated with improved survival?. In: Hemodiafiltration: Theory, Technology, and Clinical Practice, Nube MJ, Grooteman MPC, Blankestijn PJ (Eds), Springer International Publishing, 2016. p.239.
  18. Canaud B, Blankestijn PJ, Davenport A, Bots ML. Reconciling and Closing the Loop Between Evidence-Based and Practice-Based Medicine: The Case for Hemodiafiltration. Am J Kidney Dis 2016; 68:176.
  19. Daugirdas JT. Lower cardiovascular mortality with high-volume hemodiafiltration: a cool effect? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2016; 31:853.
  20. Lin CL, Huang CC, Yu CC, et al. Reduction of advanced glycation end product levels by on-line hemodiafiltration in long-term hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 42:524.
  21. Maduell F, Navarro V, Cruz MC, et al. Osteocalcin and myoglobin removal in on-line hemodiafiltration versus low- and high-flux hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 40:582.
  22. Mandolfo S, Borlandelli S, Imbasciati E. Leptin and beta2-microglobulin kinetics with three different dialysis modalities. Int J Artif Organs 2006; 29:949.
  23. Pedrini LA, De Cristofaro V, Comelli M, et al. Long-term effects of high-efficiency on-line haemodiafiltration on uraemic toxicity. A multicentre prospective randomized study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26:2617.
  24. Schiffl H. Prospective randomized cross-over long-term comparison of online haemodiafiltration and ultrapure high-flux haemodialysis. Eur J Med Res 2007; 12:26.
  25. Vaslaki L, Major L, Berta K, et al. On-line haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis: stable haematocrit with less erythropoietin and improvement of other relevant blood parameters. Blood Purif 2006; 24:163.
  26. Penne EL, van der Weerd NC, van den Dorpel MA, et al. Short-term effects of online hemodiafiltration on phosphate control: a result from the randomized controlled Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST). Am J Kidney Dis 2010; 55:77.
  27. Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S, et al. Phosphate levels in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, pre-dilution haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized and controlled trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29:1239.
  28. Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S, et al. Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21:1798.
  29. Tessitore N, Santoro A, Panzetta GO, et al. Acetate-free biofiltration reduces intradialytic hypotension: a European multicenter randomized controlled trial. Blood Purif 2012; 34:354.
  30. Locatelli F, Mastrangelo F, Redaelli B, et al. Effects of different membranes and dialysis technologies on patient treatment tolerance and nutritional parameters. The Italian Cooperative Dialysis Study Group. Kidney Int 1996; 50:1293.
  31. Santoro A, Mancini E, Zucchelli P. The impact of haemofiltration on the systemic cardiovascular response. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 Suppl 2:49.
  32. Cornelis T, van der Sande FM, Eloot S, et al. Acute hemodynamic response and uremic toxin removal in conventional and extended hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration: a randomized crossover study. Am J Kidney Dis 2014; 64:247.
  33. Donauer J, Schweiger C, Rumberger B, et al. Reduction of hypotensive side effects during online-haemodiafiltration and low temperature haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18:1616.
  34. van der Sande FM, Kooman JP, Konings CJ, Leunissen KM. Thermal effects and blood pressure response during postdilution hemodiafiltration and hemodialysis: the effect of amount of replacement fluid and dialysate temperature. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:1916.
  35. Ohtake T, Oka M, Ishioka K, et al. Cardiovascular protective effects of on-line hemodiafiltration: comparison with conventional hemodialysis. Ther Apher Dial 2012; 16:181.
  36. Schrander-vd Meer AM, ter Wee PM, Kan G, et al. Improved cardiovascular variables during acetate free biofiltration. Clin Nephrol 1999; 51:304.
  37. Mostovaya IM, Bots ML, van den Dorpel MA, et al. A randomized trial of hemodiafiltration and change in cardiovascular parameters. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 9:520.
  38. den Hoedt CH, Bots ML, Grooteman MP, et al. Online hemodiafiltration reduces systemic inflammation compared to low-flux hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2014; 86:423.
  39. Canaud B, Barbieri C, Marcelli D, et al. Optimal convection volume for improving patient outcomes in an international incident dialysis cohort treated with online hemodiafiltration. Kidney Int 2015; 88:1108.
  40. Lin CL, Huang CC, Yu CC, et al. Improved iron utilization and reduced erythropoietin resistance by on-line hemodiafiltration. Blood Purif 2002; 20:349.
  41. Panichi V, Scatena A, Rosati A, et al. High-volume online haemodiafiltration improves erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) resistance in comparison with low-flux bicarbonate dialysis: results of the REDERT study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30:682.
  42. Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S, et al. Predictors of haemoglobin levels and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: results of a multicentre randomized and controlled trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27:3594.
  43. van der Weerd NC, Den Hoedt CH, Blankestijn PJ, et al. Resistance to erythropoiesis stimulating agents in patients treated with online hemodiafiltration and ultrapure low-flux hemodialysis: results from a randomized controlled trial (CONTRAST). PLoS One 2014; 9:e94434.
  44. Kantartzi K, Panagoutsos S, Mourvati E, et al. Can dialysis modality influence quality of life in chronic hemodialysis patients? Low-flux hemodialysis versus high-flux hemodiafiltration: a cross-over study. Ren Fail 2013; 35:216.
  45. Lin CL, Huang CC, Chang CT, et al. Clinical improvement by increased frequency of on-line hemodialfiltration. Ren Fail 2001; 23:193.
  46. Ward RA, Schmidt B, Hullin J, et al. A comparison of on-line hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: a prospective clinical study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:2344.
  47. Mazairac AH, de Wit GA, Grooteman MP, et al. Effect of hemodiafiltration on quality of life over time. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8:82.
  48. den Hoedt CH, Grooteman MP, Bots ML, et al. The Effect of Online Hemodiafiltration on Infections: Results from the CONvective TRAnsport STudy. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0135908.
  49. Gritters-van den Oever M, Grooteman MP, Bartels PC, et al. Post-dilution haemodiafiltration and low-flux haemodialysis have dissimilar effects on platelets: a side study of CONTRAST. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24:3461.
  50. Klingel R, Schaefer M, Schwarting A, et al. Comparative analysis of procoagulatory activity of haemodialysis, haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration with a polysulfone membrane (APS) and with different modes of enoxaparin anticoagulation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19:164.
  51. Sombolos KI, Fragia TK, Gionanlis LC, et al. The anticoagulant activity of enoxaparin sodium during on-line hemodiafiltration and conventional hemodialysis. Hemodial Int 2009; 13:43.
  52. Maduell F, Arias M, Durán CE, et al. Nocturnal, every-other-day, online haemodiafiltration: an effective therapeutic alternative. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27:1619.
  53. Maduell F, Ojeda R, Arias-Guillen M, et al. Eight-Year Experience with Nocturnal, Every-Other-Day, Online Haemodiafiltration. Nephron 2016; 133:98.
  54. Ledebo I, Blankestijn PJ. Haemodiafiltration-optimal efficiency and safety. NDT Plus 2010; 3:8.
  55. Meert N, Eloot S, Waterloos MA, et al. Effective removal of protein-bound uraemic solutes by different convective strategies: a prospective trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24:562.
  56. Waniewski J, Heimbürger O, Werynski A, Lindholm B. Aqueous solute concentrations and evaluation of mass transport coefficients in peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1992; 7:50.
  57. Tattersall JE, Ward RA, EUDIAL group. Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013; 28:542.
  58. Mehta HK, Deabreu D, McDougall JG, Goldstein MB. Correction of discrepancy between prescribed and actual blood flow rates in chronic hemodialysis patients with use of larger gauge needles. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:1231.
  59. Kimata N, Wakayama K, Okano K, et al. Study of discrepancies between recorded and actual blood flow in hemodialysis patients. ASAIO J 2013; 59:617.
  60. Sands J, Glidden D, Jacavage W, Jones B. Difference between delivered and prescribed blood flow in hemodialysis. ASAIO J 1996; 42:M717.
  61. Canaud B, Leray-Moragues H, Kerkeni N, et al. Effective flow performances and dialysis doses delivered with permanent catheters: a 24-month comparative study of permanent catheters versus arterio-venous vascular accesses. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17:1286.
  62. Marcelli D, Scholz C, Ponce P, et al. High-volume postdilution hemodiafiltration is a feasible option in routine clinical practice. Artif Organs 2015; 39:142.
  63. Gauly A, Parisotto MT, Skinder A, et al. Vascular access cannulation in hemodialysis patients - a survey of current practice and its relation to dialysis dose. J Vasc Access 2011; 12:358.
  64. Chapdelaine I, de Roij van Zuijdewijn CL, Mostovaya IM, et al. Optimization of the convection volume in online post-dilution haemodiafiltration: practical and technical issues. Clin Kidney J 2015; 8:191.
  65. Huang SH, Shah S, Thomson BK, et al. What is single needle cannulation hemodialysis: is it adequate? Blood Purif 2014; 38:13.
  66. Pedrini LA, De Cristofaro V, Pagliari B, Samà F. Mixed predilution and postdilution online hemodiafiltration compared with the traditional infusion modes. Kidney Int 2000; 58:2155.
  67. Huang Z, Gao D, Letteri JJ, Clark WR. Blood-membrane interactions during dialysis. Semin Dial 2009; 22:623.
  68. Teatini U, Steckiph D, Romei Longhena G. Evaluation of a new online hemodiafiltration mode with automated pressure control of convection. Blood Purif 2011; 31:259.
  69. Panichi V, De Ferrari G, Saffioti S, et al. Divert to ULTRA: differences in infused volumes and clearance in two on-line hemodiafiltration treatments. Int J Artif Organs 2012; 35:435.
  70. Maduell F, Rodríguez N, Sahdalá L, et al. Impact of the 5008 monitor software update on total convective volume. Nefrologia 2014; 34:599.
  71. Albalate Ramón M, Pérez García R, de Sequera Ortiz P, et al. Clinical application of Ultracontrol®: infusion volume and use with different dialyzers. Nefrologia 2011; 31:683.
  72. Maduell F, Ojeda R, Arias-Guillén M, et al. Assessment of dialyzer surface in online hemodiafiltration; objective choice of dialyzer surface area. Nefrologia 2015; 35:280.
  73. de Roij van Zuijdewijn C, Nube MJ, Blankestijn PJ, et al. The prescribed dose of low molecular weight heparin increases after assigning patients to hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatment. J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 25(Abstract Edition):292A.
  74. Dhondt A, Pauwels R, Devreese K, et al. Where and When To Inject Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Hemodiafiltration? A Cross Over Randomised Trial. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0128634.
  75. Vincent HH, Vos MC, Akçahuseyin E, et al. Drug clearance by continuous haemodiafiltration. Analysis of sieving coefficients and mass transfer coefficients of diffusion. Blood Purif 1993; 11:99.
  76. Keller F, Wilms H, Schultze G, et al. Effect of plasma protein binding, volume of distribution and molecular weight on the fraction of drugs eliminated by hemodialysis. Clin Nephrol 1983; 19:201.
  77. Zandvliet AS, Touw DJ, Penne EL. Medication and hemodiafiltration. In: Hemodiafiltration: Theory, Technology, and Clinical Practice, Nube MJ, Grooteman MPC, Blankestijn PJ (Eds), Springer International Publishing, 2016. p.307.
  78. Blot SI, Pea F, Lipman J. The effect of pathophysiology on pharmacokinetics in the critically ill patient--concepts appraised by the example of antimicrobial agents. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2014; 77:3.