Can High Convection Volumes be Achieved in Each Patient During Online Post-dilution Hemodiafiltration? Feasibility Study in Preparation of the Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST II)

Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common used renal replacement therapy worldwide. The main objective is the removal of excess fluid and toxic solutes from the patient. Despite the relative efficiency of modern dialyzers, HD remains inferior to normal kidney function, in part because of the inadequate clearance of so-called 'middle molecules'. In other words, 'uremic toxins' accumulate in chronic HD patients.

The role of middle molecular weight uremic toxins in the pathogenesis of many co-morbid conditions associated with end-stage renal disease is increasingly recognized. Hence, the hypothesis that their enhanced removal could convey a better survival has been proposed. Actually, HDF is the most effective modality in terms of solute removal, because solute transport is achieved by both diffusion (especially for small molecules) and convection (the most important clearance route for middle molecules). Although some convective transport can be achieved with high-flux HD, only in HDF can the amount of filtered volume reach values of 20 liters per session or more.

In line with this thinking, two RCTs comparing HDF to standard hemodialysis with either low- or high-flux membranes were performed. However, treatment assignment did not alter the primary outcome of all-cause mortality in neither of them. Interestingly, post-hoc analyses from both trials unequivocally showed reduced mortality in the patient group achieving the highest convection volumes. Whether these data result from so-called dose-targeting bias (the healthiest patients reaching the highest volumes) cannot be formally excluded, but it is noteworthy that these results remained after correction for known determinants of mortality. Moreover, careful examination of patients' baseline characteristics of the CONTRAST HDF cohort did not reveal a healthier profile among the high convection volume group.

Recently, a third trial found a significant 30% decrease in mortality when HDF was applied with a mean convection volume of 23.7 L per session, which was somewhat higher than the average volumes reached in the aforementioned trials (respectively 20.7 and 19.5 L per session). Altogether, these findings support the concept of a dose-response effect, in which a minimally delivered convection volume is required in order to show a survival benefit.

Hence, the question arises whether high convection volumes are achievable in the majority of patients. In a previous sub-analysis of CONTRAST, it was found that the most important determinants of achieved convection volume were treatment time and blood flow rate. Moreover, it was noted that convection volumes and filtration fraction (defined as the ratio of extracted plasma water flow rate to blood flow rate) differed markedly per participating center, suggesting different practice patterns. Thus, it is plausible that the optimization of these apparently seemingly modifiable factors, on an individual basis through a dedicated standardized protocol, could translate into a higher achieved convection volume.