Background: The majority of studies suggesting that online hemodiafiltration reduces the risk of mortality compared to hemodialysis (HD) have been performed in dialysis-prevalent populations. In this report, we conducted an epidemiologic study of mortality in incident dialysis patients, comparing post-dilution online hemodiafiltration and high-flux HD, with propensity score matching (PSM) used to correct indication bias. Methods: Our study cohort comprised 3,075 incident dialysis patients treated in 64 Spanish Fresenius Medical Care clinics between January 2009 and December 2012. The primary outcome of this study was to investigate the impact of the type of renal replacement on all-cause mortality. An analysis of cardiovascular mortality was defined as the secondary outcome. To achieve these objectives, patients were followed until December 2016. Patients were categorized as high-flux HD patients if they underwent this treatment exclusively. If >90% of their treatment was with online hemodiafiltration, then the patient was grouped to that modality. Results: After PSM, a total of 1,012 patients were matched. Compared with patients on high-flux HD, those on online hemodiafiltration received a median replacement volume of 23.45 (interquartile range 21.27–25.51) L/session and manifested 24 and 33% reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (all-cause mortality hazards ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.94 [p = 0.01]; and cardiovascular mortality HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.90 [p = 0.008]). Conclusions: This study shows that post-dilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to high-flux HD in an incident HD population.

Hyporesponsiveness to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in dialysis patients is poorly understood. Some studies report an improvement in the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent resistance index (ERI) with hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus high-flux hemodialysis (HD). We explored ERI dynamics in 38,340 incident HDF and HD patients treated in 22 countries over a 7-year period. Groups were matched by propensity score at baseline (6 months after dialysis initiation). The follow-up period (mean of 1.31 years) was stratified into 1 month intervals with delta analyses performed for key ERI-related parameters. Dialysis modality, time interval, and polycystic kidney disease were included in a linear mixed model with the outcome ERI. Baseline ERI was nonsignificantly higher in HDF versus HD treatment. ERI decreased significantly faster in HDF-treated patients than in HD-treated patients, was decreased in both HD and HDF when patients were treated with intravenous darbepoetin alfa, but only in HDF when treated with intravenous recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO). A clear difference between HD- and HDF-treated patients could only be found for patients with high baseline ERI and assigned to intravenous rHuEPO treatment. A significant advantage in terms of lower ERI for patients treated by HDF was found. Sensitivity analysis limited this advantage for HDF to those patients treated with intravenous rHuEPO (not darbepoetin alfa or subcutaneous rHuEPO) and to patients with a high baseline ERI. Thus, our results allow more accurate planning for future clinical trials addressing anemia management in dialysis patients.

Background: Haemodiafiltration (HDF) is the preferred dialysis modality in many countries. The aim of the study was to compare the survival of incident patients on high-volume HDF (HV-HDF) with high-flux haemodialysis (HD) in a large-scale European dialysis population. Methods: The study population was extracted from 47,979 patients in 369 NephroCare centres throughout 12 countries. Baseline was six months after dialysis initiation; maximum follow-up was 5 years. Patients were either on HV-HDF (defined as with ≥21 litres substitution fluid volume per session) or on HD if on that treatment for ≥75% of the 3 months before baseline. The main predictor was treatment modality. Other parameters included country, age, gender, BMI, haemoglobin, albumin and Charlson comorbidity index. Propensity score matching and Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting (IPCW) were applied to reduce bias by indication and consider modality crossover, respectively. Results: After propensity score matching, 1,590 incident patients remained. Kaplan-Meier and proportional Cox regression analyses revealed no significant survival advantage of HV-HDF. Results were biased by modality crossover: during the 5-year study period, 7% of HV-HDF patients switched to HD, and 55% of HD patients switched to HV-HDF. IPCW uncovered a statistically significant survival advantage of HV-HDF (OR 0.501; CI 0.366-0.684; p < 0.001). A higher benefit of HV-HDF for some subgroups was revealed, for example, non-diabetics, patients 65-74 years, patients with obesity or high blood pressure. Conclusions: This large-scale study supports the generalizability of previous RCT findings regarding the survival benefit of HV-HDF. Sub-group analysis showed that some sub-cohorts appear to benefit more from HV-HDF than others.

IntroductionLong-term inappropriate proton pump inhibitors use (PPIs) is a matter of concern because of the risks associated with their long-term use in older patients with chronic conditions. The risk of PPI treatment in hemodialysis patients remains unexplored.MethodsWe assessed the relationship between the use of PPIs and the risk of death in hemodialysis patients throughout a retrospective multicenter propensity score–matched study. Information about demographic, hemodialysis treatment, laboratory data, and concomitant medication was obtained from the EuCliD database (Fresenius Medical Care). We studied 1776 hemodialysis patients on PPI therapy compared to 466 patients not receiving PPIs. The resulting population comprising 2 groups of 410 matched patients was studied.ResultsPPI use was associated with hypomagnesemia (Mg <1.8 mg/dl (0.75 mmol/l); odds ratio [OR] = 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38−5.27, P < 0.01). The exposure to PPIs in the full patient cohort was identified as an independent predictor for all-cause mortality in both univariate (HR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.69–5.90, P < 0.01) and multivariate (HR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.38–5.27, P < 0.01) Cox regression models. Moreover PPI use was identified as a predictor of CV mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.05−2.20, P = 0.03) Of the 820 patients matched throughout the propensity score analysis, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.412, 95% CI = 1.04–1.93, P = 0.03) and CV mortality (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.03−2.71, P = 0.04) were higher among patients on PPIs versus those not on PPIs.ConclusionThe study data suggest that the PPI treatment should be regularly monitored and prescribed only when indicated.

Dialysis center policy in terms of blood flow, treatment time, filter size, and perhaps even hemoglobin targets plays a key role in achieving high-volume HDF. All of these are modifiable factors that can help in prescribing an optimal combination of dialyzer size, achievable blood flows, and treatment times.