Search

The extent of removal of the uremic toxins in hemodialysis (HD) therapies depends primarily on the dialysis membrane characteristics and the solute transport mechanisms involved. While designation of ‘flux’ of membranes as well toxicity of compounds that need to be targeted for removal remain unresolved issues, the relative role, efficiency and utilization of solute removal principles to optimize HD treatment are better delineated. Through the combination and intensity of diffusive and convective removal forces, levels of concentrations of a broad spectrum of uremic toxins can be lowered significantly and successfully. Extended clinical experience as well as data from several clinical trials attest to the benefits of convection-based HD treatment modalities. However, the mode of delivery of HD can further enhance the effectiveness of therapies. Other than treatment time, frequency and location that offer clinical benefits and increase patient well-being, treatment- and patient-specific criteria may be tailored for the therapy delivered: electrolytic composition, dialysate buffer and concentration and choice of anticoagulating agent are crucial for dialysis tolerance and efficacy. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) relies on three tenets, i.e. clinical expertise (i.e. doctor), patient-centered values (i.e. patient) and relevant scientific evidence (i.e. science), that have deviated from their initial aim and summarized to scientific evidence, leading to tyranny of randomized controlled trials. One must recognize that practice patterns as shown by Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and personalization of HD care are the main driving force for improving outcomes. Based on a combination of the three pillars of EBM, and particularly on bedside patient–clinician interaction, we summarize what we have learned over the last 6 decades in terms of best practices to improve outcomes in HD patients. Management of initiation of dialysis, vascular access, preservation of kidney function, selection of biocompatible dialysers and use of dialysis fluids of high microbiological purity to restrict inflammation are just some of the approaches where clinical experience is vital in the absence of definitive scientific evidence. Further, HD adequacy needs to be considered as a broad and multitarget approach covering not just the dose of dialysis provided, but meeting individual patient needs (e.g. fluid volume, acid–base, blood pressure, bone disease metabolism control) through regular assessment—and adjustment—of a series of indicators of treatment efficiency. Finally, in whichever way new technologies (i.e. artificial intelligence, connected health) are embraced in the future to improve the delivery of dialysis, the human dimension of the patient–doctor interaction is irreplaceable. Kidney medicine should remain ‘an art’ and will never be just ‘a science’.

Chronic volume overload is pervasive in patients on chronic haemodialysis and substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular death. The rediscovery of the three-compartment model in sodium metabolism revolutionizes our understanding of sodium (patho-)physiology and is an effect modifier that still needs to be understood in the context of hypertension and end-stage kidney disease. Assessment of fluid overload in haemodialysis patients is central yet difficult to achieve, because traditional clinical signs of volume overload lack sensitivity and specificity. The highest all-cause mortality risk may be found in haemodialysis patients presenting with high fluid overload but low blood pressure before haemodialysis treatment. The second highest risk may be found in patients with both high blood pressure and fluid overload, while high blood pressure but normal fluid overload may only relate to moderate risk. Optimization of fluid overload in haemodialysis patients should be guided by combining the traditional clinical evaluation with objective measurements such as bioimpedance spectroscopy in assessing the risk of fluid overload. To overcome the tide of extracellular fluid, the concept of time-averaged fluid overload during the interdialytic period has been established and requires possible readjustment of a negative target post-dialysis weight. 23Na-magnetic resonance imaging studies will help to quantitate sodium accumulation and keep prescribed haemodialytic sodium mass balance on the radar. Cluster-randomization trials (e.g. on sodium removal) are underway to improve our therapeutic approach to cardioprotective haemodialysis management.

Background Fluid overload is frequent among hemodialysis (HD) patients. Dialysis therapy itself may favor sodium imbalance from sodium dialysate prescription. As on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) requires large amounts of dialysate infusion, this technique can expose to fluid accumulation in case of a positive sodium gradient between dialysate and plasma. To evaluate this risk, we have analyzed and compared the fluid status of patients treated with HD or OL-HDF in French NephroCare centers. Method This is a cross-sectional and retrospective analysis of prevalent dialysis patients. Data were extracted from the EUCLID5 data base. Patients were split in 2 groups (HD and OL-HDF) and compared as whole group or matched patients for fluid status criteria including predialysis relative fluid overload (RelFO%) status from the BCM®. Results 2242 patients (age 71 years; female: 39%; vintage: 38 months; Charlson index: 6) were studied. 58% of the cohort were prescribed post-dilution OL-HDF. Comparing the HD and OL-HDF groups, there was no difference between HD and OL-HDF patients regarding the predialysis systolic BP, the interdialytic weight gain, the dialysate-plasma sodium gradient, and the predialysis RelFO%. The stepwise logistic regression did not find dialysis modality (HD or OL-HDF) associated with fluid overload or high predialysis systolic blood pressure. In OL-HDF patients, monthly average convective or weekly infusion volumes per session were not related with the presence of fluid overload. Conclusions In this cross-sectional study we did not find association between the use of post-dilution OL-HDF and markers of fluid volume excess. Aligned dialysis fluid sodium concentrations to patient predialysis plasma sodium and regular monitoring of fluid volume status by bioimpedance spectroscopy may have been helpful to manage adequately the fluid status in both OL-HDF and HD patients.