Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28337715›Full record

ReviewJournal of nephrology2017

Is incremental hemodialysis ready to return on the scene? From empiricism to kinetic modelling.

Carlo Basile, Francesco Gaetano Casino, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT04360694 (RandomizEd ClinicAL triaL on the Efficacy and saFety of Incremental Hemodialysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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.

NCT04360694 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

RandomizEd ClinicAL triaL on the Efficacy and saFety of Incremental Hemodialysis

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico di BariRan2021 to 2026Enrolled190ConditionsEnd Stage Renal Disease on DialysisArmsIncremental hemodialysis, Conventional hemodialysis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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 BasileClinical Research Branch, Division of Nephrology, Miulli General Hospital, 70121, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy. basile.miulli@libero.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-5471
Francesco Gaetano CasinoClinical Research Branch, Division of Nephrology, Miulli General Hospital, 70121, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy.
Kamyar Kalantar-ZadehHarold Simmons Center for Kidney Disease Research and Epidemiology, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of California Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most people who make the transition to maintenance dialysis therapy are treated with a fixed dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis regimen without considering their residual kidney function (RKF). The RKF provides effective and naturally continuous clearance of both small and middle molecules, plays a major role in metabolic homeostasis, nutritional status, and cardiovascular health, and aids in fluid management. The RKF is associated with better patient survival and greater health-related quality of life, although these effects may be confounded by patient comorbidities. Preservation of the RKF requires a careful approach, including regular monitoring, avoidance of nephrotoxins, gentle control of blood pressure to avoid intradialytic hypotension, and an individualized dialysis prescription including the consideration of incremental hemodialysis. There is currently no standardized method for applying incremental hemodialysis in practice. Infrequent (once- to twice-weekly) hemodialysis regimens are often used arbitrarily, without knowing which patients would benefit the most from them or how to escalate the dialysis dose as RKF declines over time. The recently heightened interest in incremental hemodialysis has been hindered by the current limitations of the urea kinetic models (UKM) which tend to overestimate the dialysis dose required in the presence of substantial RKF. This is due to an erroneous extrapolation of the equivalence between renal urea clearance (Kru) and dialyser urea clearance (Kd), correctly assumed by the UKM, to the clinical domain. In this context, each ml/min of Kd clears the urea from the blood just as 1 ml/min of Kru does. By no means should such kinetic equivalence imply that 1 ml/min of Kd is clinically equivalent to 1 ml/min of urea clearance provided by the native kidneys. A recent paper by Casino and Basile suggested a variable target model (VTM) as opposed to the fixed model, because the VTM gives more clinical weight to the RKF and allows less frequent hemodialysis treatments at lower RKF. The potentially important clinical and financial implications of incremental hemodialysis render it highly promising and warrant randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalHumansKidneyKidney DiseasesKidney Function TestsKineticsRenal DialysisRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeEnd-stage renal diseaseIncremental hemodialysisInitiation of dialysisResidual renal functionTwice-weekly hemodialysisUrea kinetic modelling

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.