Background: Haemodiafiltration (HDF) is the preferred dialysis modality in many countries. The aim of the study was to compare the survival of incident patients on high-volume HDF (HV-HDF) with high-flux haemodialysis (HD) in a large-scale European dialysis population. Methods: The study population was extracted from 47,979 patients in 369 NephroCare centres throughout 12 countries. Baseline was six months after dialysis initiation; maximum follow-up was 5 years. Patients were either on HV-HDF (defined as with ≥21 litres substitution fluid volume per session) or on HD if on that treatment for ≥75% of the 3 months before baseline. The main predictor was treatment modality. Other parameters included country, age, gender, BMI, haemoglobin, albumin and Charlson comorbidity index. Propensity score matching and Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting (IPCW) were applied to reduce bias by indication and consider modality crossover, respectively. Results: After propensity score matching, 1,590 incident patients remained. Kaplan-Meier and proportional Cox regression analyses revealed no significant survival advantage of HV-HDF. Results were biased by modality crossover: during the 5-year study period, 7% of HV-HDF patients switched to HD, and 55% of HD patients switched to HV-HDF. IPCW uncovered a statistically significant survival advantage of HV-HDF (OR 0.501; CI 0.366-0.684; p < 0.001). A higher benefit of HV-HDF for some subgroups was revealed, for example, non-diabetics, patients 65-74 years, patients with obesity or high blood pressure. Conclusions: This large-scale study supports the generalizability of previous RCT findings regarding the survival benefit of HV-HDF. Sub-group analysis showed that some sub-cohorts appear to benefit more from HV-HDF than others.

1.
Sichart JM, Moeller S: Utilization of hemodiafiltration as treatment modality in renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients - a global perspective. Contrib Nephrol 2011;175:163-169.
2.
Stopper A, Scatizzi L, Klinkner G, Boccato C, Grassmann A, Marcelli D: Adopting on-line hemodiafiltration as standard therapy in EMEA NephroCare centers. Contrib Nephrol 2011;175:152-162.
3.
Canaud B, Bragg-Gresham JL, Marshall MR, Desmeules S, Gillespie BW, Depner T, Klassen P, Port FK: Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: European results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2006;69:2087-2093.
4.
Grooteman MP, van den Dorpel MA, Bots ML, Penne EL, van der Weerd NC, Mazairac AH, den Hoedt CH, van der Tweel I, Levesque R, Nube MJ, ter Wee PM, Blankestijn PJ: Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;23:1087-1096.
5.
Ok E, Asci G, Toz H, Ok ES, Kircelli F, Yilmaz M, Hur E, Demirci MS, Demirci C, Duman S, Basci A, Adam SM, Isik IO, Zengin M, Suleymanlar G, Yilmaz ME, Ozkahya M: Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013;28:192-202.
6.
Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M, Ramos R, Mora-Macia J, Carreras J, Soler J, Torres F, Campistol JM, Martinez-Castelao A: High-efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;24:487-497.
7.
Imamovic G, Hrvacevic R, Kapun S, Marcelli D, Bayh I, Grassmann A, Scatizzi L, Maslovaric J, Canaud B: Survival of incident patients on high-volume online hemodiafiltration compared to low-volume online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:1191-1200.
8.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 2007;18:805-835.
9.
Marcelli D, Moscardo V, Steil H, Day M, Kirchgessner J, Mitteregger A, Orlandini G, Gatti E: Data management and quality assurance for dialysis network. Contrib Nephrol 2002;137:293-299.
10.
Goldau R, Kuhlmann U, Samadi N, Gross M, Graf T, Orlandini G, Marcelli D, Lange H: Ionic dialysance measurement is urea distribution volume dependent: a new approach to better results. Artif Organs 2002;26:321-332.
11.
Lee E, Wei LJ, Amato DA: Cox-type regression analysis for large numbers of small groups of correlated failure time observations; in Klein JP, Goel P (eds): Survival Analysis: State of the Art. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp 237-247.
12.
Parsons LS: Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. SAS Institute Inc, 2001, pp 214-226 (accessed July 20, 2013).
13.
Parfrey PS, Foley RN: The clinical epidemiology of cardiac disease in chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10:1606-1615.
14.
Locatelli F, Altieri P, Andrulli S, Bolasco P, Sau G, Pedrini LA, Basile C, David S, Feriani M, Montagna G, Di Iorio BR, Memoli B, Cravero R, Battaglia G, Zoccali C: Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;21:1798-1807.
15.
Kim ST, Yamamoto C, Ashabe H, Sato T, Takamiya T: Online haemodiafiltration: effective removal of high molecular weight toxins and improvement in clinical manifestations of chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrology 1996;2:S183-S186.
16.
Susantitaphong P, Riella C, Jaber BL: Effect of ultrapure dialysate on markers of inflammation, oxidative stress, nutrition and anemia parameters: a meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013;28:438-446.
17.
Merello Godino JI, Rentero R, Orlandini G, Marcelli D, Ronco C: Results from EuCliD (European Clinical Dialysis Database): impact of shifting treatment modality. Int J Artif Organs 2002;25:1049-1060.
18.
Hannan EL: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies: guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1:211-217.
19.
Jirka T, Cesare S, Di benedetto A, Perera Chang M, Ponce P, Richards N, Tetta C, Vaslaky L: Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2006;70:1524; author reply 1524-1525.
20.
Panichi V, Rizza GM, Paoletti S, Bigazzi R, Aloisi M, Barsotti G, Rindi P, Donati G, Antonelli A, Panicucci E, Tripepi G, Tetta C, Palla R: Chronic inflammation and mortality in haemodialysis: effect of different renal replacement therapies. Results from the RISCAVID study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:2337-2343.
21.
Vilar E, Fry AC, Wellsted D, Tattersall JE, Greenwood RN, Farrington K: Long-term outcomes in online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: a comparative analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:1944-1953.
22.
Farrington K, Davenport A: The ESHOL study: hemodiafiltration improves survival-but how? Kidney Int 2013;83:979-981.
23.
Locatelli F, Horl WH: Dialysis: a step towards making online haemodiafiltration a gold standard. Nat Rev Nephrol 2013;9:316-318.
24.
Sternberg CN, Hawkins RE, Wagstaff J, Salman P, Mardiak J, Barrios CH, Zarba JJ, Gladkov OA, Lee E, Szczylik C, McCann L, Rubin SD, Chen M, Davis ID: A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final overall survival results and safety update. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1287-1296.
25.
FDA Advisory Committee Briefing Document: AFINITOR® (EVEROLIMUS). NDA 22-334, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM250381.pdf (accessed March 26, 2014).
26.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Everolimus for the second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta219/documents/renal-cell-carcinoma-second-line-metastatic-everolimus-final-appraisal-determination (accessed December 2, 2014).
27.
Jin H, Tu D, Zhao N, Shepherd LE, Goss PE: Longer-term outcomes of letrozole versus placebo after 5 years of tamoxifen in the NCIC CTG MA.17 trial: analyses adjusting for treatment crossover. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:718-721.
28.
Stopper A, Raddatz A, Grassmann A, Stuard S, Menzer M, Possnien G, Scatizzi L, Marcelli D: Delivering quality of care while managing the interests of all stakeholders. Blood Purif 2011;32:323-330.
29.
Marcelli D, Kirchgessner J, Amato C, Steil H, Mitteregger A, Moscardo V, Carioni C, Orlandini G, Gatti E: EuCliD (European Clinical Database): a database comparing different realities. J Nephrol 2001;14(suppl 4):S94-S100.
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.