An individual RBV limit exists for nearly all patients. In most IME-prone patients, these RBV values were stable with only narrow variability, thus making it a useful indicator to mark the individual window of haemodynamic instabilities.
Background: Controlled randomised studies to prove improved cardiovascular stability and improved anaemia management during on-line haemodiafiltration (oHDF) are scarce. Methods: 70 patients were treated with both haemodialysis (HD) and oHDF in a cross-over design during 2 × 24 weeks at a dialysis dose of eKt/V≧1.2. Patients randomised into group A started on HD and switched over to oHDF, whereas patients in group B began with oHDF and were treated with HD afterwards. Intradialytic morbid events (IME), such as symptomatic hypotension or muscle cramps, were noted in case of appearance. Blood parameters reflecting anaemic status, phosphate status, lipid metabolism, oxidative stress, and accumulation of advanced glycation end products were recorded either monthly or at the end of each study phase. Results: The mean incidence of IME was 0.15 IME per treatment, and there was no statistical difference between oHDF and HD. A higher haematocrit (oHDF 31.5% vs. HD 30.5%, p < 0.01) at a lower erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,913 vs. HD 5,492 IU/week, p = 0.02) was found during oHDF, when the sequence of HD and oHDF had not been taken into account. For the study groups, the results were less distinct: in group A, a higher haematocrit (HD 30.4% vs. oHDF 32.0%, p < 0.01) at a comparable erythropoietin dose (HD 5,421 vs. oHDF 5,187 IU/week, ns) was observed during oHDF, whereas in group B an identical haematocrit (oHDF 30.8% vs. HD 30.7%, ns) was achieved at a reduced erythropoietin dose (oHDF 4,622 vs. HD 5,568 IU/week, p < 0.01). During oHDF, lower levels of free and protein-bound pentosidine and of serum phosphate were found. Conclusion: In contrast to other studies, no benefit regarding cardiovascular stability for oHDF was found, but oHDF could well offer a potential benefit regarding anaemia correction, inflammation, oxidative stress, lipid profiles, and calcium-phosphate product.
BackgroundThe infusion of microbubbles as a side effect of haemodialysis was repeatedly demonstrated in recent publications, but the knowledge on the source of microbubbles and on microbubble formation is scarce.MethodsMicrobubbles in the range of 10–500 µm were measured by a non-invasive bubble counter based on a pulsed ultrasonic Doppler system in a non-interventional study of a single centre. Totally, 29 measurements were performed in standard treatments covering a broad range of patient and treatment conditions (types of blood access, treatment modes, blood flow rates and arterial pressures).ResultsSeveral possible sources of microbubbles could be identified such as an arterial luer lock connector at negative pressure and remnant bubbles from insufficient priming, but some sources of microbubbles remain unknown. Microbubbles were found in all treatments, haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration. The lowest average microbubble rates (17 ± 16 microbubbles per minute) were observed in patients treated by online haemodiafiltration at medium blood flow rates and moderate arterial pressures and the highest average microbubble rates (117 ± 63 microbubbles per minute) at high blood flow rates (550 mL/min) and low arterial pressures (−210 mmHg). Generally, the microbubble rate correlated to both blood flow rate (correlation coefficient r = 0.45) and negative arterial pressure (r = 0.67).ConclusionsMicrobubbles are a general side effect of HD; origin and pathophysiologic consequences of this phenomenon are not well understood, and deserve further study.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. AbstractIn standard care, hemodialysis patients are often treated with a center-specific fixed dialysate sodium concentration, potentially resulting in diffusive sodium changes for patients with plasma sodium concentrations below or above this level. While diffusive sodium load may be associated with thirst and higher interdialytic weight gain, excessive diffusive sodium removal may cause intradialytic symptoms. In contrast, the new hemodialysis machine option "Na control" provides automated individualization of dialysate sodium during treatment with the aim to reduce such intradialytic sodium changes without the need to determine the plasma sodium concentration.This proof-of-principle study on sodium control was designed as a monocentric randomized controlled crossover trial: 32 patients with residual diuresis of ≤1000 mL/day were enrolled to be treated by high-volume post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) for 2 weeks each with "Na control" (individually and automatically adjusted dialysate sodium concentration) versus "standard fixed Na" (fixed dialysate sodium 138 mmol/L), in randomized order. Pre-and post-dialytic plasma sodium concentrations were determined at bedside by direct potentiometry. The study hypothesis consisted of 2 components: the mean plasma sodium change between the start and end of the treatment being within ±1.0 mmol/L for sodium-controlled treatments, and a lower variability of the plasma sodium changes for "Na control" than for "standard fixed Na" treatments. Three hundred seventy-two treatments of 31 adult chronic hemodialysis patients (intention-to-treat population) were analyzed. The estimate for the mean plasma sodium change was −0.53 mmol/L (95% confidence interval:[−1.04; −0.02] mmol/L) for "Na control" treatments and −0.95 mmol/L (95% CI:[−1.76; −0.15] mmol/L) for "standard fixed Na" treatments. The standard deviation of the plasma sodium changes was 1.39 mmol/L for "Na control" versus 2.19 mmol/L for "standard fixed Na" treatments (P = 0.0004). Whereas the 95% CI for the estimate for the mean plasma sodium change during "Na control" treatments marginally overlapped the lower border of the predefined margin ±1.0 mmol/L, the variability of intradialytic plasma sodium changes was lower during "Na control" versus "standard | 1003 SÁGOVÁ et al. *Patient means = averages of 6 pre-dialytic measurements/6 differences between pre-and post-dialytic values (Δ) per patient and study phase. **Mean ± SD, in addition median [Q1; Q3] for continuous variables that are not normally distributed. 1008 | SÁGOVÁ et al.pre-dialytic fluid overload of 1.7 ± 1 and 1.6 ± 1 L measured at the end of the "Na control" phase and the "standard fixed Na" phase, respectively, no effect on fluid status has been found. There was also n...
On-line HDF, as the most effective renal replacement therapy, does not provoke inflammatory response and is both safe and highly biocompatible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.