Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27586123›Full record

ReviewJournal of nephrology2017

Why choose high volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration?

Carlo Basile, Andrew Davenport, Peter J Blankestijn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Why should we focus on high-volume hemodiafiltration?Kidney research and clinical practice · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Classification of Uremic Toxins and Their Role in Kidney Failure.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Evaluation of low-volume post-dilution online hemodiafiltration with Japanese high-performance hemodiafilters.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carlo BasileDivision of Nephrology, Clinical Research Branch, Miulli General Hospital, 70121, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy. basile.miulli@libero.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-5471
Andrew DavenportUniversity College London Medical School, Royal Free Hospital, Centre for Nephrology, University College London, London, UK.
Peter J BlankestijnDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mortality rate of patients on maintenance dialysis remains alarmingly high, at approximately 15-20 % per year. Increasing dialyzer urea clearance has not been shown to improve survival and hence interest has shifted towards convective therapies, such as hemodiafiltration (HDF) which can remove middle molecular weight uremic toxins, which have been suggested to increase mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease. During the last few years, four large prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in different European countries to compare survival outcomes in prevalent patients receiving conventional hemodialysis with online post-dilution HDF (OL HDF). Furthermore, a pooled individual participant data analysis from four RCTs was performed and four large meta-analyses on convective therapies have been published in the last 2 years. Taken together, these studies support the conclusion that high volume post-dilution OL HDF is associated with improved overall survival. This advantage results predominantly from a lower cardiovascular mortality, possibly due to better preservation of left ventricle mass and function. Improved intra-dialytic blood pressure stability may contribute to the beneficial effect of high volume post-dilution OL HDF on survival. The beneficial effect is not restricted to selected subgroups, such as age, comorbidity or dialysis vintage. There is no compelling evidence that high volume post-dilution OL HDF reduces mortality by improvements in traditional and non-traditional risk factors. There are still no studies or case reports published describing adverse clinical outcomes in more than 20 years of HDF clinical experience. In conclusion, most of the available data support the choice of high volume post-dilution HDF over the current dialysis techniques. However, considering that we live in the era of evidence-based medicine, the evidence supporting the superiority of high volume post-dilution OL HDF in comparison to hemodialysis is still missing: in fact, a new RCT targeting different convection volumes would be needed to definitively examine the dose-response effect shown in previous studies.

Indexed as

Fluid ShiftsWater-Electrolyte BalanceBody WaterConvectionHemodiafiltrationHemodynamicsHumansKidneyKidney Failure, ChronicRenal CirculationRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeCardiovascular mortalityComvectionHemodiafiltrationHemodialysisOnline post-dilution hemodiafiltrationSudden death

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.