Alain Ficheux

Consequences of increasing convection onto patient care and protein removal in hemodialysis

Introduction Recent randomised controlled trials suggest that on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) improves survival, provided that it reaches high convective volumes. However, there is scant information on the feasibility and the consequences of modifying convection volumes in clinics. Methods Twelve stable dialysis patients were treated with high-flux 1.8 m2 polysulphone dialyzers and 4 levels of convection flows (QUF) based on GKD-UF monitoring of the system, for 1 week each. The consequences on dialysis delivery (transmembrane pressure (TMP), number of alarms, % of achieved prescribed convection) and efficacy (mass removal of low and high molecular weight compounds) were analysed. Results TMP increased exponentially with QUF (p<0.001 for N >56,000 monitoring values). Beyond 21 L/session, this resulted into frequent TMP alarms requiring nursing staff interventions (mean ± SEM: 10.3 ± 2.2 alarms per session, p<0.001 compared to lower convection volumes). Optimal convection volumes as assessed by GKD-UF-max were 20.6 ± 0.4 L/session, whilst 4 supplementary litres were obtained in the maximum situation (24.5 ± 0.6 L/session) but the proportion of sessions achieving the prescribed convection volume decreased from 94% to only 33% (p<0.001). Convection increased high molecular weight compound removal and shifted the membrane cut-off towards the higher molecular weight range. Conclusions Reaching high convection volumes as recommended by the recent RCTs (> 20L) is feasible by setting an HDF system at its optimal conditions based upon the GKD-UF monitoring. Prescribing higher convection volumes resulted in instability of the system, provoked alarms, was bothersome for the nursing staff and the patients, rarely achieved the prescribed convection volumes and increased removal of high molecular weight compounds, notably albumin.

The ultrafiltration coefficient: this old ‘grand inconnu’ in dialysis

Although a wide range of physical principles capable of separating different solutes exist in biochemistry (such as affinity, or size as well as charge retaining columns and others), the removal of uraemic solutes has been almost exclusively performed up to the present with membrane-based systems. Sir Thomas Graham, in the second half of the 1800s, defined the method of separating various fluids by diffusion through a membrane with the term ‘dialysis’[1]. Galen in the second century of our era already claimed that the skin resembles a sieve and ‘sweating purifies the body, … by low-effort exercise, baths and the summer heat’ [De Symptomatum Causis Libri III, Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia (II)][2], and ancient Romans used the skin as a natural membrane to rid their bodies of poisonous urinal substances in the Therms and public baths. Well into the 20th century, artificial kidneys, based on membrane devices were adopted and the pioneer work by Abel, Rowntree and Turner [3], as well as that of Haas [4], was followed by the rotatory drum dialyser of Willem Kolff [5] and the vertical drum one of Nils Alwall [6]. Finally, the hollow fibre dialysers gained adepts and a widespread use of cuprophane membranes for a very long period of time (from the 1970s to the 1990s) has been followed by the introduction of high-flux membranes that have invaded most of the dialysis units worldwide to the present. It became quite clear from the very beginning that membranes differ in their clearance capacities of the different solutes, basically depending on thickness and pore size. However, increasing the pore size and reducing thickness is almost forcedly associated to a water permeability increase. The open dialysate circuit settings used during the era of low-permeability membranes had to be secured by the addition of ultrafiltration controllers, which closed the dialysis circuit [7], and are mandatory when using high-flux membranes (highly permeable to water) particularly if convective techniques are utilized. Defining water permeability of a dialyser was considered important from the beginning and is even more important with the high-flux dialysers. Water permeability of a dialyser was defined by its ultrafiltration coefficient, which is displayed in the notice of the given dialyser. The coefficient of ultrafiltration (KUF) was first defined by the amount of fluid (V) in mL crossing the dialyser membrane per time (T) in hours and pressure (P) in mmHg: KUF=VT×P

Correction: Consequences of increasing convection onto patient care and protein removal in hemodialysis

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171179.].