Martín Giorgi, Ana Sánchez-Horrillo, María Riutort-Garvi, Jesús Bonilla-Rico, Melissa Liriano-Alba, Daniela Abzueta, Ignacio Gómez-Rojas, Aranzazu Alfranca, Eva Sanjuán-Suria, Marta Fernández-Sampedro, Natalia F Pascual Gómez, María A Bajo, Borja Quiroga
{"title":"Expanded Hemodialysis as an Alternative to Suboptimal Online Hemodiafiltration.","authors":"Martín Giorgi, Ana Sánchez-Horrillo, María Riutort-Garvi, Jesús Bonilla-Rico, Melissa Liriano-Alba, Daniela Abzueta, Ignacio Gómez-Rojas, Aranzazu Alfranca, Eva Sanjuán-Suria, Marta Fernández-Sampedro, Natalia F Pascual Gómez, María A Bajo, Borja Quiroga","doi":"10.1159/000550038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Online hemodiafiltration (OLHDF) is associated to reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality when achieving high-dose convective volume. However, not all patients are able to reach the optimal volume of OLHDF or are not eligible for OLHDF. The aim of the present study was to compare expanded hemodialysis (HDx) and suboptimal post-dilution OLHDF in the reduction of solutes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this observational prospective study, we included all the patients of our hemodialysis units with suboptimal (i.e., convective volume <19.2 L) OLHDF. After a minimum of 1 month in OLHDF, patients were switched to HDx for another month. Removal ratio (RR) for small, medium, and large molecules was calculated for each period. In addition, we compared the global removal score (GRS) with both techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve patients were included (58% male, 68 ± 16 years) and completed the study. OLHDF displayed higher RR of urea (p = 0.011), prolactin (p < 0.001), β2-microbloglulin (p = 0.011), myoglobin (p = 0.015), kappa free light chains (FLCs) (p = 0.04), and lambda FLC (p = 0.012). In contrast, OLHDF and HDx presented similar RR of creatinine, C-reactive protein, albumin, α2-macroglobulin, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL12, TNF-α, metalloproteinase-1, and p-cresol. The GRS was similar in OLHDF and HDx (55 [46-70]% vs. 51 [41-59]%, NS).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HDx presents a similar GRS in comparison to OLHDF demonstrating that this technique can be prescribed in cases of suboptimal convective volume achievement.</p>","PeriodicalId":8953,"journal":{"name":"Blood Purification","volume":" ","pages":"189-196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","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/10.1159/000550038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Online hemodiafiltration (OLHDF) is associated to reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality when achieving high-dose convective volume. However, not all patients are able to reach the optimal volume of OLHDF or are not eligible for OLHDF. The aim of the present study was to compare expanded hemodialysis (HDx) and suboptimal post-dilution OLHDF in the reduction of solutes.
Methods: In this observational prospective study, we included all the patients of our hemodialysis units with suboptimal (i.e., convective volume <19.2 L) OLHDF. After a minimum of 1 month in OLHDF, patients were switched to HDx for another month. Removal ratio (RR) for small, medium, and large molecules was calculated for each period. In addition, we compared the global removal score (GRS) with both techniques.
Results: Twelve patients were included (58% male, 68 ± 16 years) and completed the study. OLHDF displayed higher RR of urea (p = 0.011), prolactin (p < 0.001), β2-microbloglulin (p = 0.011), myoglobin (p = 0.015), kappa free light chains (FLCs) (p = 0.04), and lambda FLC (p = 0.012). In contrast, OLHDF and HDx presented similar RR of creatinine, C-reactive protein, albumin, α2-macroglobulin, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL12, TNF-α, metalloproteinase-1, and p-cresol. The GRS was similar in OLHDF and HDx (55 [46-70]% vs. 51 [41-59]%, NS).
Conclusion: HDx presents a similar GRS in comparison to OLHDF demonstrating that this technique can be prescribed in cases of suboptimal convective volume achievement.
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.