Resumen

RAMIREZ MORENO, Carmen et al. A comparative analysis between online hemodiafiltration and hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion: clinical, technical and inflammatory parameters. Enferm Nefrol [online]. 2014, vol.17, n.2, pp.104-109. ISSN 2255-3517.  https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S2254-28842014000200004.

Introduction: Hemodialysis (HD) itself produces a chronic inflammatory process in the patient. Alternative techniques as hemodiafiltration "online" (OL-HDF) improve, among other things, this inflammatory profile. Nowadays, in this research line, new convective techniques are emerging. These techniques could be better than the HDF-OL. Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion or HFR-SUPRA (HFR) uses a two-chamber dialyzer plus a resin cartridge. In this technique the patient ultrafiltered liquid is subsequently reinfused to its regeneration in this resin cartridge. The aim of our study was to evaluate the differences between the HFR and OL-HDF technique, in terms of clinical and inflammatory parameters and dialysis adequacy. Materials and methods: Sixteen patients were included with a mean age of 61.6 ± 14.5 years. These patients were subjected to the two techniques for periods of eight weeks by the following scheme: HFR-1, HDF-OL-1, HFR-2, HDF-OL-2. All patients underwent high-flux HD in the 8 weeks prior. Technical (pressure in the arterial and venous lines, blood flow, treated liter, the infusion volume, and needs of heparin), clinical (systolic and diastolic blood pressure pre and post-dialysis, dry weight, interdialytic weight gain, incidents during the hemodialysis session) and laboratory parameters (elimination of B2m, hemoglobin, hematocrit, albumin) and inflammatory parameters were collected. Results: There was no difference between the two techniques in the collected clinical parameters: systolic and diastolic pre and post-dialysis dry weight, interdialytic weight gain and incidents during the session. And even there were no significant differences in the needs of heparin or Kt / V. The hemoglobin values (both 11.46), B2m reduction (70.14% vs 65.19%, p = 0.6) and albumin (3.60 vs 3.64, p = 0.4) were not significantly different. It was found higher pressure in the venous line in the OL-HDF versus HFR (165.2 vs 149.9, p = 0.017), together with greater hemoconcentration subjectively observed by Nursing. However, the volume of replacement fluid is significantly higher with the OL-HDF technique. The assembly time and priming were higher in the HFR technique (2.28 vs 4.82, p = 0.012), although greater difficulty in the assembly of the technique was not observed. During the session, the HFR technique requires less nursing intervention because it presents less variability in parameters related to hemoconcentration, generating fewer alarms. There were no significant differences in the PCR as nonspecific marker of inflammation. However, in the HFR technique a decrease in the activity of CD14 ++ and CD16 ++ (pro-inflammatory monocytes) and lower levels of VEGF were observed. Conclusion: The HFR technique does not present more technical difficulties than the HDF-OL for nursing, for though the installation time is longer, requires less subsequent intervention. No significant differences in the technical and clinical parameters between the two techniques were found. However, our preliminary results show a decrease of the proinflammatory activation of monocytes in the HFR with respect to the OL-HDF technique.

Palabras clave : Hemodiafiltration on line; Endogenous reinfusion; Inflammatory parameters.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )