HEMO

From Wiki Journal Club
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Published
Rose EA, et al. "Effect of Dialysis Dose and Membrane Flux in Maintenance Hemodialysis". The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002. 347(25):2020-2019.
PubMed • Full text • PDF

Clinical Question

In patients undergoing hemodialysis, does a higher dialysis dose or a high-flux dialyzer membrane reduce all-cause mortality?

Bottom Line

In patients undergoing hemodialysis, neither a higher dialysis dose nor a high-flux dialyzer membrane reduce all-cause mortality.

Major Points

Dialysis dose and size of molecules removed are important factors in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.[1] Expressed as Kt/V, guidelines at the time of this study recommended a single-pool Kt/V of >1.2.[2] The Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study aimed to determine the effect of a higher dialysis dose (target equilibrated Kt/V 1.45) and a high-flux dialyzer membrane on all-cause mortality in patients undergoing thrice-weekly hemodialysis, as compared to standard-dose (target equilibrated Kt/V 1.05) and low-flux membrane.[3]

Patients were randomized in a 2x2 factorial design to receive hemodialysis at a high-dose (n=920) as compared to standard-dose (n=926), or a high-flux membrane (n=921) as compared to low-flux membrane (n=925). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (primary outcome) when comparing between the groups. However, high-flux membrane was associated with a significant improvement in some secondary CV outcomes.

Similarly, the NCDS findings did not show any mortality benefit in patients treated with a higher dialysis dose.[4] The TiME is an ongoing trial which aims to evaluate the effect of longer hemodialysis duration on all-cause mortality.[5] In addition, the MPO and EGE study did not observe any mortality difference between hemodialysis patients assigned to either low-flux or high-flux membranes.[6][7] A Cochrane analysis published in 2012 (33 studies, 3820 patients) noted that high-flux membranes reduced CV mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99) but this benefit needs to be confirmed.[8] However, no significant benefit on all-cause mortality was seen.

Guidelines

KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy (2015 update)[9]

  • For thrice-weekly hemodialysis schedule, the target single pool Kt/V (spKt/V) is 1.4 per session with a minimum delivered spKt/V of 1.2 (Class IB)
  • For other hemodialysis schedules, the target Kt/V is 2.3 volumes/week with a minimum delivered dose of 2.1 (not graded)
  • For intermittent hemodialysis, either high- or low-flux biocompatible hemodialysis membranes are recommended (Class IB)

Design

  • Multicenter, 2x2 factorial, randomized, controlled trial
  • N=1,846
    • high-dose (n=920) vs. standard-dose (n=926)
    • high-flux (n=921) vs. low-flux (n=925)
  • Setting: 15 centers (72 dialysis units) in Canada and the United States
  • Enrollment: 1995-2000
  • Mean follow-up: 2.84 years
  • Analysis: Intention-to-treat
  • Primary outcome: all-cause mortality

Population

Inclusion Criteria

  • age 18-80 years
  • undergoing thrice weekly hemodialysis
  • has been on hemodialysis for ≥3 months

Exclusion Criteria

  • residual urea clearance >1.5 mL/minute per 35 liters of urea
  • serum albumin <2.6 g/dL
  • inability to achieve equilibrated Kt/V of >1.30 within 4.5 hours during two of three consecutive monitored dialysis sessions in the high-dose group
  • obesity (97% of randomized patients were <100 kg)

Baseline Characteristics

From the high-dose group (n=920)

  • Demographics: Age 57 years, females 56%, African-American 61%,
  • Clinical measurements: BP 152/82 mm Hg
  • Medical history: Diabetes 44%, cardiac disease 79%
  • Laboratory measurements: Serum creatinine: 10.3 mg/dL, serum albumin 3.6 g/dL, total cholesterol 174 mg/dL
  • Dialysis and CKD-related history:
    • Dialysis duration: 4 years
    • Equilibrated Kt/V: 1.43
    • Residual urea clearance >0: 34%
    • Weight after dialysis: 69 kg
    • Body water volume after dialysis: 35L
    • High-flux membrane: 61%
    • Equilibrated normalized protein catabolic rate: 1.03 g/kg/day

Interventions

  • Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio with 2x2 factorial design to receive:
    • Dose randomization:
      • High-dose - Equilibrated Kt/V 1.45, urea-reduction ratio of 75% or a single-pool Kt/V of 1.65
      • Standard-dose -Equilibrated Kt/V 1.05, urea-reduction ratio of 65% or a single-pool Kt/V 1.25
    • Flux randomization:
      • High-flux - Ultrafiltration coefficient >14 ml/hour/mm Hg and mean beta2-microglobulin clearance >20 ml/min
      • Low-flux - Mean beta2-microglobulin clearance <10 ml/min

Outcomes

Comparisons are presented as high-dose vs. standard-dose, followed by high-flux vs. low-flux. P-values are listed where available.

Primary Outcomes

All-cause mortality
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.162 vs. 0.171 event/patient-year (risk reduction 4%, 95%CI -10 to 16; P=0.53)
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.162 vs. 0.171 event/pt-yr (risk reduction 8%, 95%CI -5 to 19; P=0.23)

Secondary Outcomes

First hospitalization for cardiac causes or all-cause mortality
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.279 vs. 0.290 event/pt-yr (risk reduction 1%, 95%CI -12 to 12; P=0.91)
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.275 vs. 0.295 event/pt-yr (risk reduction 10%, 95%CI -1 to 20; P=0.08)
First hospitalization due to infection or all-cause mortality
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.292 vs. 0.307 event/pt-yr (risk reduction 3%, 95%CI -9 to 14; P=0.6)
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.287 vs. 0.312 event/pt-yr
First decrease in album (>15%) or all-cause mortality
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.245 vs. 0.244 event/pt-yr
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.238 vs. 0.251 event/pt-yr
Hospitalizations not related to vascular access
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 1.24 vs. 1.3 event/pt-yr (risk reduction 4%, 95%CI -6 to 13; P=0.38)
High-flux vs. low-flux: 1.28 vs. 1.25 event/pt-yr (risk increase by 1%, 95%CI -9 to 11; P=0.87)
CV mortality
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.065 vs. 0.066 event/pt-yr
high-flux vs. low-flux: 0.059 vs. 0.072 event/pt-yr (P<0.05)
First hospitalization for fatal or nonfatal cardiac causes
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.219 vs. 0.222 event/pt-yr
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.208 vs. 0.233 event/pt-yr (P<0.05)
Mortality due to infection
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.038 vs. 0.038 event/pt-yr
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.037 vs. 0.04 event/pt-yr
First hospitalization for fatal or nonfatal infection
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 0.209 vs. 0.226 event/pt-yr
High-flux vs. low-flux: 0.209 vs. 0.226 event/pt-yr

Other outcomes

Single-pool Kt/V
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 1.71±0.11 vs. 1.32±0.09
High-flux vs. low-flux: 1.52±0.22 vs. 1.51±0.22
Equilibrated Kt/V
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 1.53±0.09 vs. 1.16±0.08
High-flux vs. low-flux: 1.34±0.21 vs. 1.34±0.21
Urea-reduction ratio
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 75.2±2.5 vs. 66.3±2.5%
High-flux vs. low-flux: 70.9±5.1 vs. 70.6±5.1
Beta2-microglobulin clearance/dialysis session
High-dose vs. standard-dose: 4.0±3.6 vs. 3.5±3.6 L
High-flux vs. low-flux: 6.8±2.3 vs. 0.7±1.5 L

Subgroup Analysis

For the primary outcome:

Gender
Female: favors high-dose (19% lower risk compared to standard-dose)
Male: favors standard-dose (16% lower risk compared to high-dose)
P-value for interaction 0.01
Prior dialysis duration
≤3.7 years: no difference
>3.7 years: favors high-flux (32% lower risk compared to low-flux)
P-value for interaction 0.005

There was no significant interaction for ethnicity, baseline dialysis prescription, BP and comorbidities.

Criticisms

  • The use of Kt/V to define dialysis dose may result in less power to detect differences in patient outcomes[10]

Funding

  • The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  • Baxter Healthcare
  • Fresenius Medical Care
  • R&D Laboratories
  • Ross Laboratories

Further Reading

  1. ↑ Renal Data System. USRDS 2001 annual data report: atlas of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2001
  2. ↑ Eknoyan G, Levin N. NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:Suppl 1:S5-S6[Erratum, Am J Kidney Dis 2001;38:917.]
  3. ↑ Garabed E, et al. Effect of Dialysis Dose and Membrane Flux in Maintenance Hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:2010-2019
  4. ↑ Lowrie EG, Laird NM, Parker TF, Sargent JA. Effect of the hemodialysis prescription on patient morbidity: report from the National Cooperative Dialysis Study. N Engl J Med 1981;305:1176-1181
  5. ↑ NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory: UH3 Project: Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME), 2015. Available at: https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/demonstration-projects/Pages/TiME.aspx. Accessed September 06, 2016
  6. ↑ Locatelli, F., Martin-Malo, A., Hannedouche, T. et al. Effect of membrane permeability on survival of hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 20: 645–654
  7. ↑ Asci, G., Tz, H., Ozkahya, M. et al. The impact of membrane permeability and dialysate purity on cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 24: 1014–1023
  8. ↑ Palmer SC, Rabindranath KS, Craig JC, Roderick PJ, Locatelli F, Strippoli GFM. High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD005016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005016.pub2.
  9. ↑ Daugirdas, JT. et al. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy: 2015 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Nov;66(5):884-930. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.07.015.
  10. ↑ Himmelfarb, J. Success and Challenge in Dialysis Therapy. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:2068-2070
Retrieved from "http://www.wikijournalclub.org/w/index.php?title=HEMO&oldid=31543"