High-Volume Hemodiafiltration: Expanding the Evidence Beyond Randomized Trials-A Critical Perspective on the 2025 EuDial Consensus.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stefano Stuard, Franklin W Maddux
{"title":"High-Volume Hemodiafiltration: Expanding the Evidence Beyond Randomized Trials-A Critical Perspective on the 2025 EuDial Consensus.","authors":"Stefano Stuard, Franklin W Maddux","doi":"10.3390/jcm14093174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 2025 EuDial Consensus systematically compared hemodiafiltration (HDF) to high-flux hemodialysis (HD), highlighting HDF's superior removal of middle-molecular-weight uremic toxins, potential survival advantages, and immunomodulatory properties. High-Volume HDF (HVHDF), defined by a substitution volume exceeding 23 L per session, was associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, reduced infection-related mortality, and decreased systemic inflammation. <b>Background/Objectives:</b> Nevertheless, the consensus refrains from endorsing HDF as the standard of care, citing insufficient evidence to prevent sudden cardiac death, reduce intradialytic hypotension, or significantly lower hospitalization rates compared to HD. <b>Methods:</b> This review critically evaluates the EuDial Consensus, highlighting its methodological strengths while noting potential limitations stemming from an exclusive reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The exclusion of real-world evidence (RWE) and mechanistic studies may have led to an underestimation of HDF's broader clinical benefits, particularly in cardiovascular stability, inflammation control, and anemia management. <b>Results:</b> Multiple studies have demonstrated HDF's capacity to enhance immune function, improve erythropoiesis, and increase the clearance of beta-2 microglobulin (β2M) and other pro-inflammatory toxins. Furthermore, the CONVINCE trial's economic analysis supports HDF's cost-effectiveness, especially when considering improved survival and reduced dependency on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. <b>Conclusions:</b> Future research should integrate RWE and mechanistic insights to better define HDF's therapeutic potential, particularly concerning anemia control, infection mitigation, and hemodynamic stability. While the EuDial Consensus provides valuable clinical guidance, its conclusions should be contextualized within a broader and evolving evidence base. Given its multidimensional benefits, post-dilution HVHDF is increasingly viewed as a preferred renal replacement therapy modality, warranting wider adoption in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12072281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2025 EuDial Consensus systematically compared hemodiafiltration (HDF) to high-flux hemodialysis (HD), highlighting HDF's superior removal of middle-molecular-weight uremic toxins, potential survival advantages, and immunomodulatory properties. High-Volume HDF (HVHDF), defined by a substitution volume exceeding 23 L per session, was associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, reduced infection-related mortality, and decreased systemic inflammation. Background/Objectives: Nevertheless, the consensus refrains from endorsing HDF as the standard of care, citing insufficient evidence to prevent sudden cardiac death, reduce intradialytic hypotension, or significantly lower hospitalization rates compared to HD. Methods: This review critically evaluates the EuDial Consensus, highlighting its methodological strengths while noting potential limitations stemming from an exclusive reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The exclusion of real-world evidence (RWE) and mechanistic studies may have led to an underestimation of HDF's broader clinical benefits, particularly in cardiovascular stability, inflammation control, and anemia management. Results: Multiple studies have demonstrated HDF's capacity to enhance immune function, improve erythropoiesis, and increase the clearance of beta-2 microglobulin (β2M) and other pro-inflammatory toxins. Furthermore, the CONVINCE trial's economic analysis supports HDF's cost-effectiveness, especially when considering improved survival and reduced dependency on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Conclusions: Future research should integrate RWE and mechanistic insights to better define HDF's therapeutic potential, particularly concerning anemia control, infection mitigation, and hemodynamic stability. While the EuDial Consensus provides valuable clinical guidance, its conclusions should be contextualized within a broader and evolving evidence base. Given its multidimensional benefits, post-dilution HVHDF is increasingly viewed as a preferred renal replacement therapy modality, warranting wider adoption in clinical practice.

大容量血液滤过:扩大随机试验之外的证据——2025年EuDial共识的关键观点。
2025年EuDial共识系统地比较了血液滤过(HDF)和高通量血液透析(HD),强调了HDF在去除中等分子量尿毒症毒素、潜在生存优势和免疫调节特性方面的优势。高容量HDF (HVHDF),定义为每次替代量超过23l,与改善心血管结局、降低感染相关死亡率和减少全身炎症相关。背景/目的:然而,共识不支持HDF作为治疗标准,理由是没有足够的证据可以预防心源性猝死,减少溶栓性低血压,或与HD相比显着降低住院率。方法:本综述对EuDial共识进行了批判性评价,强调了其方法学优势,同时指出了完全依赖随机对照试验(rct)的潜在局限性。排除真实世界证据(RWE)和机制研究可能导致低估了HDF更广泛的临床益处,特别是在心血管稳定性、炎症控制和贫血管理方面。结果:多项研究表明,HDF具有增强免疫功能、促进红细胞生成、增加β -2微球蛋白(β2M)和其他促炎毒素清除的能力。此外,说服试验的经济分析支持HDF的成本效益,特别是考虑到提高生存率和减少对促红细胞生成药物的依赖。结论:未来的研究应整合RWE和机制见解,以更好地确定HDF的治疗潜力,特别是在贫血控制、感染缓解和血流动力学稳定性方面。虽然EuDial共识提供了宝贵的临床指导,但其结论应在更广泛和不断发展的证据基础中进行背景分析。鉴于其多方面的益处,稀释后HVHDF越来越被视为首选的肾脏替代治疗方式,在临床实践中得到更广泛的采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信