Aims
Data from studies comparing the effect of hemodiafiltration (HDF) and conventional hemodialysis (HD) on clinically important outcomes are insufficient to support superiority of HDF. None of these studies has been participant-blinded.
Background/aims
Data from studies comparing the effect of hemodiafiltration (HDF) and conventional hemodialysis (HD) on clinically important outcomes are insufficient to support superiority of HDF. None of these studies has been participant-blinded.
Conclusion
In short term, HDF is not superior to HD regarding dialysis-related complications. The higher ESA consumption observed with HDF can be explained by blood clotting in tubing and dialyzers, as more anticoagulation was needed with post-dilution HDF. In a longer perspective, lowering serum hepcidin levels may improve pathological iron homeostasis.
Methods
We performed a prospective, randomized, and patient-blinded cross-over study. Twenty patients on chronic HD received either HD for 2 months followed by post-dilution HDF for 2 months or in opposite order. A range of clinical parameters, as well as markers of inflammation, oxidative stress and iron metabolism was measured.
Results
The two treatments were similar with respect to dialysis-related complications, quality of life, and the biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation. Compared to HD, 25-hepcidin and β(2)-microglobulin were 38 and 32%, respectively, lower after 60 days of HDF (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). The consumption of ESA (erythropoietin-stimulating agent) and LMWH (low-molecular-weight heparin) was significantly higher with HDF.