A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Trial of Recovery Time in High-Flux Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration

Abstract

BackgroundThe choice between hemodiafiltration (HDF) or high-flux hemodialysis (HD) to treat end-stage kidney disease remains a matter of debate. The duration of recovery time after treatment has been associated with mortality, affects quality of life, and may therefore be important in informing patient choice. We aimed to establish whether recovery time is influenced by treatment with HDF or HD.Study DesignRandomized patient-blinded crossover trial.Settings & Participants100 patients with end-stage kidney disease were enrolled from 2 satellite dialysis units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.Intervention8 weeks of HD followed by 8 weeks of online postdilution HDF or vice versa.OutcomesPosttreatment recovery time, symptomatic hypotension events, dialysis circuit clotting events, and biochemical parameters.MeasurementsPatient-reported recovery time in minutes, incidence of adverse events during treatments, hematology and biochemistry results, quality-of-life questionnaire.ResultsThere was no overall difference in recovery time between treatments (medians for HDF vs HD of 47.5 [IQR, 0-240] vs 30 [IQR, 0-210] minutes, respectively; P = 0.9). During HDF treatment, there were significant increases in rates of symptomatic hypotension (8.0% in HDF vs 5.3% in HD; relative risk [RR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P < 0.001) and intradialytic tendency to clotting (1.8% in HDF vs 0.7% in HD; RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-5.0; P = 0.002). Serum albumin level was significantly lower during HDF (3.2 vs 3.3 g/dL; P < 0.001). Health-related quality-of-life scores were equivalent.LimitationsSingle center; mean achieved HDF convection volume, 20.6 L.ConclusionsPatients blinded to whether they were receiving HD or HDF in a randomized controlled crossover study reported similar posttreatment recovery times and health-related quality-of-life scores.