Patricia Muñoz Ramos, Laura Guasch, David Conejo, Esther Rodríguez, Virginia López, Borja Quiroga, Mayra Ortega, Rafael Lucena, Marta Puerta, Laura Medina, Fabio Luca Procaccini, Juan Martín-Navarro, Roberto Alcázar, Patricia de Sequera
{"title":"Influence of Different Hemodialysis Biocontrols on the Achievement of the Convective Volume.","authors":"Patricia Muñoz Ramos, Laura Guasch, David Conejo, Esther Rodríguez, Virginia López, Borja Quiroga, Mayra Ortega, Rafael Lucena, Marta Puerta, Laura Medina, Fabio Luca Procaccini, Juan Martín-Navarro, Roberto Alcázar, Patricia de Sequera","doi":"10.1159/000546642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Post-dilution on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients when high substitution volumes are achieved. To date, little emphasis has been placed on the impact of different biocontrols in achieving high replacement volumes. The aim of the present study was to compare the substitution volume achieved with three different monitors using the three available automatic systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective, observational cross-over study of prevalent patients on post-dilution OL-HDF. Each patient underwent 9 consecutive post-dilution OL-HDF sessions with each of the monitors included in the study: Artis, 6008, and Surdial X with the corresponding biocontrols: UltraControl, AutoSub+, and Max-Sub, respectively. After each session, the final convective volume and other parameters related to HD and medium-molecule clearance were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen patients were included (57% male, age 62 ± 14 years), of whom 71% were dialyzed via an arteriovenous fistula. The mean time on dialysis was 51 ± 32 months. Convective volume achieved with Max-Sub biocontrol (Surdial X monitor) was higher than that achieved with UltraControl biocontrol (Artis monitor) (31 ± 2 vs. 29.4 ± 2.2 L/session, p = 0.009) and AutoSub+ biocontrol (6008 monitor) (31 ± 2 vs. 28.9 ± 2.6 L/session, p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with higher convective volume were the prescription of Max-Sub biocontrol (B 1.61, 95% CI [0.41-2.80], p = 0.009), TPM (B 0.02, 95% CI [0.01-0.03], p = 0.018), blood processed (B 0.17, 95% CI [0.08-0.26], p < 0.001), and not having diabetes mellitus (B -1.66, 95% CI [-2.72 to 0.59], p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The volume achieved by convective transport can vary according to the type of biocontrol, with Max-Sub performing the best out of the 3 biocontrol systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":8953,"journal":{"name":"Blood Purification","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Purification","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546642","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Post-dilution on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients when high substitution volumes are achieved. To date, little emphasis has been placed on the impact of different biocontrols in achieving high replacement volumes. The aim of the present study was to compare the substitution volume achieved with three different monitors using the three available automatic systems.
Methods: Prospective, observational cross-over study of prevalent patients on post-dilution OL-HDF. Each patient underwent 9 consecutive post-dilution OL-HDF sessions with each of the monitors included in the study: Artis, 6008, and Surdial X with the corresponding biocontrols: UltraControl, AutoSub+, and Max-Sub, respectively. After each session, the final convective volume and other parameters related to HD and medium-molecule clearance were collected.
Results: Thirteen patients were included (57% male, age 62 ± 14 years), of whom 71% were dialyzed via an arteriovenous fistula. The mean time on dialysis was 51 ± 32 months. Convective volume achieved with Max-Sub biocontrol (Surdial X monitor) was higher than that achieved with UltraControl biocontrol (Artis monitor) (31 ± 2 vs. 29.4 ± 2.2 L/session, p = 0.009) and AutoSub+ biocontrol (6008 monitor) (31 ± 2 vs. 28.9 ± 2.6 L/session, p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with higher convective volume were the prescription of Max-Sub biocontrol (B 1.61, 95% CI [0.41-2.80], p = 0.009), TPM (B 0.02, 95% CI [0.01-0.03], p = 0.018), blood processed (B 0.17, 95% CI [0.08-0.26], p < 0.001), and not having diabetes mellitus (B -1.66, 95% CI [-2.72 to 0.59], p = 0.002).
Conclusion: The volume achieved by convective transport can vary according to the type of biocontrol, with Max-Sub performing the best out of the 3 biocontrol systems.
简介:稀释后在线血液滤过(OL-HDF)已被证明可以降低血液透析(HD)患者的全因死亡率,当达到高替代量时。迄今为止,很少强调不同生物防治对实现高替代量的影响。本研究的目的是比较使用三种可用的自动系统的三种不同监测仪所取得的替代量。方法:对稀释后使用OL-HDF的流行患者进行前瞻性、观察性交叉研究。每位患者在稀释后使用Artis、6008和Surdial X进行连续9次OL-HDF治疗,并分别使用ultraccontrol、AutoSub+和Max-Sub进行相应的生物对照。每次实验结束后,收集最终对流体积以及HD和中分子清除率相关的其他参数。结果:纳入13例患者(男性57%,年龄62±14岁),其中71%通过动静脉瘘(AVF)透析。平均透析时间为51±32个月。Max-Sub生物防治(Surdial X监测仪)获得的对流体积高于ultraccontrol生物防治(Artis监测仪)(29.1±2.1 vs 27.2±2.1 L/次,p=0.006)和AutoSub+生物防治(6008监测仪)(29.1±2.1 vs 27±3 L/次,p=0.01)。在多因素分析中,与高对流容积相关的因素为Max-Sub生物防治处方(b1.61, 95% CI [0.41-2.80], p=0.009)、TPM (b0.02, 95% CI [0.01-0.03], p=0.018)、血液处理(b0.17, 95% CI [0.08-0.26], p= 0.09)
期刊介绍:
Practical information on hemodialysis, hemofiltration, peritoneal dialysis and apheresis is featured in this journal. Recognizing the critical importance of equipment and procedures, particular emphasis has been placed on reports, drawn from a wide range of fields, describing technical advances and improvements in methodology. Papers reflect the search for cost-effective solutions which increase not only patient survival but also patient comfort and disease improvement through prevention or correction of undesirable effects. Advances in vascular access and blood anticoagulation, problems associated with exposure of blood to foreign surfaces and acute-care nephrology, including continuous therapies, also receive attention. Nephrologists, internists, intensivists and hospital staff involved in dialysis, apheresis and immunoadsorption for acute and chronic solid organ failure will find this journal useful and informative. ''Blood Purification'' also serves as a platform for multidisciplinary experiences involving nephrologists, cardiologists and critical care physicians in order to expand the level of interaction between different disciplines and specialities.