Background: High dialysate flow rates (QD) of 500–800 mL/min are used to maximize urea removal during conventional hemodialysis. There are few data describing hemodialysis with use of mid-rate QD (300 mL/min). Methods: We constructed uremic solute (urea, beta2-microglobulin and phosphate) kinetic models at varying volumes of distribution and blood flow rates to predict solute clearances at QD of 300 and 500 mL/min. Results: Across a range of volumes of distribution a QD of 300 mL/min generally yields a predicted urea spKt/V greater than 1.2 during typical treatment times with a small difference in urea spKt/V between a QD of 300 and 500 mL/min. A larger urea KoA dialyzer and 15 min of additional time narrows the urea spKt/V difference. No substantial differences were observed regarding the kinetics of beta2-microglobulin and phosphate for QD of 300 vs. 500 mL/min. Conclusion: A QD of 300 mL/min can achieve urea clearance targets. Hemodialysis systems using mid-rate QD can be expected to provide adequate hemodialysis, as currently defined.

1.
Tenckhoff, BH, Curtis FK:Experience with maintenance peritoneal dialysis in the home. Trans Am Soc Artif Internal Organs 1970; 16: 90–96.
2.
Yeates K, Zhu N, Vonesh E, Trepeski L, Blake P, Fenton S: Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are associated with similar outcomes for end-stage renal disease treatment in Canada. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27: 3568–3575.
3.
Kao TW, Huang JW, Hung KY, Chang YY, Chen PC, Yen CJ et al: Life expectancy, expected years of life lost and survival of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Nephrol 2010; 23: 677–682.
4.
Korevaar JC, Feith G, Dekker FW, Van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Bossuyt PM, et al: Effect of starting with hemodialysis compared to peritoneal dialysis in patients new on dialysis treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int 2003; 64: 2222–2228.
5.
Roigoni, M, Torri E, Nollo G, Zarntonello D, Laudon A, Sottini L, et al: Survival and time-to transplantation of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease patients: competing-risks regression model in a single Italian center experience. J Nephrol 2017; 30: 441–447.
6.
Lowrie, E, Laird N, Parker T, Sargent J: Effect of the hemodialysis prescription on patient morbidity: report from the National Cooperative Dialysis Study. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 1176–1181.
7.
Gotch F, Sargent J: A mechanistic analysis of the National Cooperative Dialysis Study (NCDS). Kidney Int 1985; 28: 526–534.
8.
Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, et al: for the HEMO study group. Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2010–2019.
9.
KDIGO. Am J Kidney Dis 2015; 66: 884–930.
10.
Annual Data Report, USRDS, 2017.
11.
Lindsay RM, Heidenheim GH, Garg AX, Suri R; Daily Hemodialysis Study Group London Health Sceinces Centre: Minutes to recovery after a hemodialysis session: a simple health-related quality of life question that is reliable, valid, and sensitive to change. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1: 952–959.
12.
Garg A, Suri R, Eggers P, Finkelstein F, Greene T, Kimmel P, et al: Patients receiving frequent hemodialysis have better health-related quality of life compared to patients receiving conventional hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2017; 91: 746–754.
13.
Daugirdas JT: Chapter 11 Chronic hemodialysis prescription in Handbook of Dialysis (ed 5); in Daugurdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS (eds): Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer, 2015, pp 192–214.
14.
Kirchner K, White R, Kiley J, Bower J: Long-term hemodialysis at reduced dialysate flow rates. Am J Nephrol 1984; 4: 7–12.
15.
Greene T, Daugirdas JT, Depner TA, Gotch F, Kuhlman M; Frequent Hemodialysis Study Group: Solute clearances and fluid removal in the frequent hemodialysis network trials. Am J Kidney Dis 2009; 53: 835–844.
16.
Ward RA, Greene T, Hartmann B, Samtleben W: Resistance to intercompartmental mass transfer limits beta2-microglobulin2 removal by post-dilution hemodiafiltration. Kidney Int 2006; 69: 1431–1437.
17.
Agar BU, Akonur A, Lo YC, Cheung AK, Leypoldt JK: Kinetic model of phosphorus mobilization during and after short and conventional hemodialysis. Clin J Soc Nephrol 2011: 6: 2854–2860.
18.
Michaels AS: Operating parameters and performance criteria for hemodialyzers and other membrane-separation devices. Trans Am Soc Artif Organs 1966; 12: 387–392.
19.
Bhimani JP, Ouseph R, Ward RA: Effect of increasing dialysate flow on diffusive mass transfer of urea, phosphate and beta2-microglobulin during clinical haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010; 25: 3990–3995.
20.
Leypoldt JK, Agar BU, Akonur A, Gellens ME, Culleton BF: Steady state phosphorus mass balance model during hemodialysis based on a pseudo one-compartment kinetic model. Int J Artif Organs 2012; 35: 969–980.
21.
Daugirdas JT: Second generation logarithmic estimates of single-pool variable Kt/V: an analysis of error. J Am Soc Nephrol 1993; 4: 1205–1213.
22.
Tattersol JE, DeTakats D, Chamney P, Greenwood RN, Farrington K: The post-hemodialysis rebound: predicting and quantifying its effect on Kt/V. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 2094–2102.
23.
Kashiwagi T, Sato K, Kawakami S, Kiyomoto M, Enomoto M, Suzuki T, et al: Effects of reduced dialysis fluid flow in hemodialysis. J Nippon Med Sch 2013; 80: 2.
24.
Albalate M, Perez-Garcia R, De Sequera P, Corchete E, Alcazar R, Ortega M, et al: Is it useful to increase dialysate flow rate to improve the delivered Kt/V. BMC Nephrol 2015; 16: 20.
25.
Park KI, Tomoyoshi T: Assessment of the effects of low dialysate flow rates on removal rates and clearance using high flux membranes. Blood Purif 1997; 15: 208–212.
26.
Depner T, Rizwan S, Stasi T: Pressure effects on roller pump blood flow during hemodialysis. ASAIO J 1990; 36: 456–459.
27.
Schmidt J, Schniepp B, Kurtz S, McCarthy J: Inaccurate blood flow rate during rapid hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1991; 17: 34–37.
28.
Sands J, Glidden D, Jacavage W, Jones B: Difference between delivered and prescribed blood flow in hemodialysis. ASAIO J 1996; 42: 717–719.
29.
Camacho O, Rosales MC, Shafi T, Fullman J, Plummer NS, Meyer TW, Sirich TL: Effect of a sustained difference in hemodialytic clearance on the plasma levels of p-cresol sulfate and indoxyl sulfate. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2016; 31: 1335–1341.
30.
Pham NM, Recht NS, Hostetter TH, Meyer TW: Removal of the protein-bound solutes indican and p-cresol sulfate by peritoneal dialysis. Clin J Soc Neph 2008; 3: 85–90.
31.
Vega A, Ruiz C, Soraya A, Borja Q, Velazquez K, Ampuero J, Lopez-Gomez J: Body composition affects urea distribution volume estimated by Watson's formula. J Renal Nutr 2015; 25: 420–425.
32.
Daugirdas J, Greene T, Depner T, Chumela C, Rocco M, Chertow GM; Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study Group: Anthropometrically estimated total body water volumes are larger than modeled urea volume in chronic hemodialysis patients: effects of age, race, and gender. Kidney Int 2003; 64: 1108–1119.
33.
Leypoldt JK, Cheung AK, Agodoa LY, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Keshaviah PR: Hemodialyzer mass transfer-area coefficients for urea increase at high dialysate flow rates. The Hemodialysis (HEMO) study. Kidney Int 1997; 51: 2013–2017.
34.
Leypoldt JK, Cheung AK: Effect of low dialysate flow rate on hemodialyzer mass transfer area coefficients for urea and creatinine. Home Hemodial Int 1999; 3: 51–54.
35.
Leypoldt JK, Kamerath C, Gilson JF, Friederichs G: Dialyzer clearances and mass transfer-area coefficients for small solutes at low dialysate flow rates. ASAIO J 2006; 52: 404–409.
36.
Ouseph R, Ward RA: Increasing dialysate flow rate increases dialyzer urea mass transfer-area coefficients during clinical use. Amer J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 316–320.
37.
Eloot S, Torremans A, De Smet R, Marascau B, De Deyn PP, Verdonck P, Vanholder R: Complex compartmental behavior of small water-soluble uremic retention solutes: evaluation by direct measurements in plasma and erythrocytes. Am J Kidney Dis 2007; 50: 279–288.
38.
Spalding EM, Chamney PW, Farrington K: Phosphate kinetics during hemodialysis: evidence for biphasic regulation. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 655–667.
39.
Laursen SH, Vestergaard P, Hejlesen OK: Phosphate kinetic models in hemodialysis: a systemic review. Amer J Kidney Dis 2018; 71: 75–90.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.