Comparison of Four Different Short Dialysis Techniques

Abstract

The goal of shortening dialysis treatment time has stimulated the development of new, highly efficient dialytic strategies. In this study the Authors compared four different short dialysis treatments in terms of efficiency, clinical tolerance, technological investment and costs: 1) Rapid bicarbonate dialysis with 1.5 sq.m. cuprophane membrane; 2) High flux biofiltration with 1.2 sq.m. AN69S hollow fiber membrane; 3) Hemodiafiltration with 1.2-1.9. sq.m. polysulphonic hollow fiber hemodiafilters, and 4) High flux hemodiafiltration with two serial hemodiafilters with AN69s membrane (total 2.4 sq.m.). Hydraulic properties and solute clearances at different blood flows (300-500 ml/min) were tested for each technique. Once the optimal operative level was established three patients were treated with each technique for at least six months. Since BUN clearance averaged 310 ml/min, the treatment duration varied from 120 to 180 min/session with KT/V always higher than 1. The average protein catabolic rate was 0.9 g/kg/24h. Clinical tolerance was generally good, slightly better in treatments with a high convective component. Despite the greater efficiency of treatment No. 4, the technological requirements and costs are such that the others are currently more feasible and acceptable in clinical routine. The study demonstrates that reduction of dialysis treatment time is possible in all centres in a selected population with adequate blood access. Treatment No. 1 can even be performed with standard equipment and cuprophan membranes, while bicarbonate in the dialysate is mandatory. The real limit to shortening treatment time seems to be related to the maximal rate of ultrafiltration achievable in the patient during dialysis.