There is increased scientific evidence that hemodiafiltration (HDF) positively affects clinical outcomes for dialysis patients. However, healthcare policy and reimbursement rates are among the challenges that limit the broader adoption of HDF in many countries. Overcoming these barriers requires that health policy experts look beyond the initial higher cost of HDF to factor in the long-term benefits for both healthcare systems and people on hemodialysis.
Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is a technologically advanced dialysis modality that utilizes a specifically designed high-flux dialyzer and a dedicated hemodialysis machine.
Online HDF efficiently removes small-molecular-weight uremic solutes mainly through diffusive transport. Simultaneously, medium-sized molecules, such as beta 2-microglobulin, are preferentially removed through convective clearance, which depends on several factors, including blood flow, ultrafiltration (UF) rate, and dialyzer membrane characteristics (pore size and permeability). To maximize the removal of middle-sized toxins through convection, UF exceeds the desired fluid loss, and replacement (substitution, Qsub) fluid is administered to achieve the target fluid balance (Figure 1).
Figure 1|Diffusion and Convection Process
The term ĢýonlineĢý refers to the fact that the dialysis machine generates the Qsub fluid from ultrapure dialysate in real time. This eliminates the need for pre-prepared substitution fluid bags.
High-volume HDF is designed to enhance the advantages of online HDF by increasing the Qsub fluid production and consequently boosting the convective clearance, thus enhancing the overall effectiveness of the treatment.
Technical Aspects of HDF
HDF dates to the late 1960s when Henderson published the first article on the use of UF and fluid replacement as a method of blood cleansing,1and it has undergone continuous improvement since then.2Since the late 1970s, due to the need for large volumes of substitution solution, the fresh sterile and non-pyrogenic (ultrapure) fluid has been made from dialysate and reinfused as substitution fluid (online HDF).3The substitution fluid (Qsub) is obtained by the cold sterilization of dialysate, achieved via a two-step ultrafiltration process using sterilizing ultrafilters.
Online HDF treatment modalities can be categorized based on the point of Qsub administration within the extracorporeal circuit into four distinct types.4,5The Qsub is introduced before the blood enters the dialyzer in pre-dilution HDF. In post-dilution HDF, the Qsub is infused after the dialyzer into the venous drip chamber (Figure 2). Less commonly utilized, mixed-dilution and mid-dilution HDF infuse the Qsub at distinct points within the extracorporeal circuit. In mixed-dilution HDF, the fluid is added both before and after the dialyzer, whereas in mid-dilution HDF, it is introduced into the midpoint of the circuit.
Figure 2|Post-Dilution Online Hemodiafiltration: The Substitution Fluid is Infused in the Venous Drip Chamber
In Asia, pre-dilution HDF is preferred due to the lower blood flow rate (Qb) requested. Conversely, post-dilution online HDF is the dominant modality in Europe, accounting for roughly 90% of convective dialysis procedures. Post-dilution online HDF allows for a more favorable balance between elevated low-middle molecule solute clearance removal rates and reduced use of substitution volume compared to other online HDF techniques. The high UF rate increases the risk of membrane fouling with increased transmembrane pressure (TMP), shortened membrane lifespan, and reduced clearances. These factors limit the filtration fraction (UF rate/plasma flow rate x 100%) to around 25%Ģý30% of the Qb.6Various automated feedback control systems have been introduced to adjust the infusion rate of Qsub based on Qb and dialyzer TMP. These systems aim to streamline the execution of online HDF while optimizing the intradialytic Qsub.
To mitigate the increased TMP caused by the protein fouling, Qsub is automatically reduced to keep the treatment stable, significantly reducing the number of alarms during dialysis.7Among the others, ĢýĢýs (FME) AutoSub plus automatically adapts Qsub according to the Qb, blood viscosity, TMP, and attenuation of pressure pulses. Membrane characteristics are fundamental to minimizing protein fouling. One of the most important is a hydrophilic modification of the synthetic membrane surface to reduce protein adsorption and lead to performance stability during treatments.8,9,10,11,12
Clinical Benefits
In recent reviews, the advantages of online HDF compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) were summarized.13,14Online HDF has demonstrated a direct effect in decreasing the incidence of intradialytic hypotensive episodes, better hemodynamic stability unrelated to improved sodium balance,15,16,17and a positive impact on cardiac remodeling.18,19,20,21Patients undergoing HDF have exhibited reductions in chronic inflammatory states21,22and oxidative stress22,23alongside enhancements in endothelial function and cardiovascular stiffness,24,25,26progression of atherosclerosis,27sympathetic tone activity,28and arrhythmogenicity.29HDF contributes to improving anemia management,30,31,32nutritional status,32,33physical activity,34enhancement of quality of life,33,35,36,37and protection of residual kidney function.38
Four large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the superiority of online HDF over HF-HD with respect to clinical outcomes, particularly in reducing the mortality of individuals with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).39,40,41,42Peters et al. conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of the four RCTs and found that online HDF was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 23% reduction in cardiovascular mortality compared to HF-HD.43Many retrospective data analysis studies have yielded comparable results, showing a dose-response relationship between substitution/convective volume and survival rate.44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52Specifically, a substitution/convective volume exceeding 21/23 L per session has been associated with the most favorable effect on lowering mortality.44,45,46,47,48In the CONVINCE study, a multinational interventional randomized controlled trial funded by the European UnionĢýs Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, 1,360 individuals with ESKD were recruited from 61 dialysis centers from public and private sectors in 8 countries.53The post-dilution high dose (volume) HDF (HVHDF), defined as convection volumes ≥ 23 L (range ±1 L) per session, reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 23% compared to HF-HD.53A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of five RCTs showed that online HDF significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular-related deaths by 25% and all-cause mortality by nearly 20% compared with the HD group; additionally, HDF effectively reduced the risk of infection-related mortality by 31%.39, 40, 41, 53, 54, 55
Challenges to Adoption
Despite the evidence that post-dilution HVHDF improves clinical outcomes and quality of life, its worldwide adoption remains limited. From 2014 to 2023, the number of HDF patients worldwide grew by an average of 13% per year (Figure 3).58Expanding HVHDF more globally requires addressing the barriers to adoption. Canaud et al. postulated that HVHDF acceptance might be affected by regulatory and technical issues, clinical evidence of benefit, and healthcare policies, including reimbursement rates.57All countries worldwide have approved online HDFĢýs clinical use, and regulatory and technical aspects have become more accessible to address.57Despite the increased scientific evidence demonstrating the positive impact of HVHDF on clinical outcomes, healthcare policy and reimbursement rates remain the most significant challenges limiting the broader adoption of HVHDF in many countries. Japan has encouraged the use of HDF by approving its payment under national health insurance and setting higher reimbursement rates in 2012.57The number of patients treated by HDF has been rising since 2012 to reach 191,492 by the end of 2022, which accounted for 55.1% of all dialysis patients.58In 2022, approximately 31% of people with ESKD receiving hemodialysis in Europe were treated by online HDF,56though there is high variability between European countries. Some European countries have recognized the potential of HDF to improve patient outcomes while keeping healthcare costs stable, leading them to implement policies aimed at increasing its uptake. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the U.K. recognized the superiority of HDF in their guidelines.59Some countries have incentivized the uptake of HDF by offering higher reimbursement rates (e.g., Czech Republic). Others have introduced restrictions, either by specific indications (e.g., Poland), by setting a threshold limit (e.g., Italy), or by making HDF payment coverage dependent upon individual payerĢýs/health insurance policies (e.g., Slovenia). In some European countries, HDF is allowed but reimbursed at the same rate as HF-HD.
Figure 3|Online-HDF Patient Development (Thousands) by Region and Global Average Annual Increase (HDF not yet implemented in United States)
Since 2004, HVHDF has been adopted as standard therapy in FME Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) NephroCare clinics. In January 2014, FME EMEA implemented an infusion volume greater than 21 L per session as a new quality key performance indicator (KPI) for patients receiving treatment with post-dilution online HDF. Over a decade, over half of all people with ESKD treated in FME EMEA clinics have been treated according to this target. As of 2023, more than 26,000 prevalent patients (dialysis vintage in FME clinics > 90 days, receiving 12Ģý13 treatments/month) were treated using post-dilution online HDF with a mean convective volume of 26.4±4.9 L.
In contrast, there is some suggestion that using mid-medium cut-off dialyzers may be non-inferior to HVHDF in reducing all-cause mortality. The MOTheR study trial is an open-label multicenter prospective trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using a mid-medium cut-off dialyzer compared to HVHDF in dialysis patients in Spain for up to 36 months.60Preliminary data suggest it may be non-inferior in reducing all-cause mortality. Other potential benefits associated with HVHDF have not yet been reported for the MOTheR trial.58
Strategies for Adoption
To further expand HV-HDF adoption worldwide, several strategies could be implemented:
1. Through targeted workshops and training programs, knowledge gaps in HVHDF can be bridged effectively, significantly enhancing comprehension. Managing HVHDF programs, experiences, success stories, and lessons learned can be disseminated through identified reference centers, inspiring broader adoption. Standardization of HVHDF procedures, including implementing specific KPIs (e.g., treatment time ≥ 240 minutes, convective volume ≥ 23 L), minimizes variability, ensures adherence to best practices, and fosters efficient workflow. Additionally, integrated systems equipped with dedicated machines, dialyzers, and automated feedback controls for infusion rate adjustments can improve operational efficiency and help mitigate the learning curve for healthcare personnel.
2. Conducting health economic outcome studies assessing the comparative costs and outcomes associated with HVHDF versus traditional methods may provide valuable insights into its financial sustainability. Shroff and the EUDIAL Working Group highlighted concerns regarding the sustainability and environmental impact of HVHDF due to the larger infusion volume required compared to conventional high-flux HD, and they speculated that the associated cost outweighs the benefits.61On the contrary, Canaud et al. demonstrated that optimally prescribed post-dilution online HDF emerges as the most environmentally friendly choice.62This approach not only excels in enhancing solute clearance across all molecular weights but also offers the potential to significantly reduce water and dialysate consumption by allowing lower dialysate flow rates without compromising clearances.62
3. Online HDF is capable of meeting the main clinical and financial challenges as well as the diverse expectations of various stakeholders (patients, physicians, industry healthcare providers, and funders).63While evidence suggests favorable patient outcomes with HVHDF, questions regarding its cost-effectiveness compared to high-flux HD persist. While the upfront investment in HVHDF infrastructure may initially seem restrictive, focusing on its long-term returns, such as reduced hospitalizations, increased survival, decreased medication requirements, and improved quality of life, legitimizes the initial expenditure.
4. Robust cross-functional networks involving researchers, healthcare organizations, industry partners, government agencies, and nephrology societies are essential for driving standard-setting, evidence-based practice, and innovation in HVHDF. This type of collaboration is essential to demonstrate this therapyĢýs long-term savings and value proposition, including reduced hospitalizations and co-morbid events. Active engagement in multinational consortiums dedicated to advancing renal care, such as the CONVINCE studyĢýwhich unites dialysis divisions in academic hospitals, general facilities, and private renal care providersĢýamplifies the focus on HVHDF and fosters cross-border learning. These alliances can potentially promote the dissemination of best practices across diverse contexts, accelerate knowledge generation, and support broader worldwide implementation of HVHDF, focusing on resource optimization, safety, efficacy, and environmental sustainability.
5. Promoting active patient participation in the decision-making process, in collaboration with patient associations, ensures that patient preferences and values are considered when selecting dialysis modalities. Providing accessible educational materials, including relevant information about potential benefits and drawbacks, can facilitate informed decision-making and encourage greater patient acceptance and active participation in HVHDF programs.
Conclusion
Achieving widespread adoption of HVHDF necessitates a multifaceted and collaborative strategy that addresses current challenges effectively. The proposed interventions should be implemented through a multistakeholder approach. By fostering the expansion of HVHDF, the overarching goal of enhancing patient care and clinical outcomes on a global scale while ensuring its sustainable delivery can be achieved.
While the upfront investment in HVHDF infrastructure may initially seem restrictive, focusing on its long-term returns, such as reduced hospitalizations, increased survival, decreased medication requirements, and improved quality of life, legitimizes the initial expenditure.
The CONVINCE study was exclusively supported by the European Commission Research & Innovation, Horizon 2020, Call H2020-SC1-2016-2017 under the topic SC1-PM-10-2017: Comparing the effectiveness of existing healthcare interventions in the adult population (grant no 754803).
Strategy to
Expand High-
Volume
Hemodiafiltration
Worldwide
In this section:
- Understanding Dialysis Publications
- Advancing and Personalizing Kidney Disease Care
- Kidney Disease: Evolving the Standard of Care
- Strategy to Expand HVHDF Worldwide
- Home Dialysis Today: More than a Different Place for ESKD Care
- Predicting Population Trends in Kidney Health Using Advanced Mathematical Modeling
- Interventions to Improve Survival in People with ESKD on Dialysis
- Improving Food Security in People with ESKD
- A Bold Vision to Accelerate Adoption of Value-Based Kidney Care
- The Challenges and Benefits of Generative AI in Kidney Care
- Responding to Natural Disasters and Geopolitical Conflicts
1L.W.B. Henderson, A. Besarab, A. Michaels, and L.W. Bluemle, Jr., ĢýBlood Purification by Ultrafiltration and Fluid Replacement (Diafiltration),ĢýTransactions of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs13, no. 1 (April 1967): 216Ģý26.
2T. Roy, ĢýHistorical Milestones of a Long PathwayĢý inOn-Line Hemodiafiltration:The Journey and the Vision, ed. G. Krick and C. Ronco, Contributions to Nephrology (Basel: S.Karger AG, 2011), 1Ģý14.
3L.W. Henderson, M.L. Sanfelippo, and E. Beans, ĢýĢýOn lineĢý Preparation of Sterile Pyrogen-Free Electrolyte Solution,ĢýTransactions of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs24, no. 1 (April 1978): 465Ģý67.
4B. Canaud, R. Lévesque, D. Krieter, S. Desmeules, L. Chalabi, H. Moragués, et al., ĢýOn-line Hemodiafiltration as Routine Treatment of End-Stage Renal Failure: Why Pre- or Mixed Dilution Mode Is Necessary in On-line Hemodiafiltration Today?ĢýBlood Purification22, no.2 (2004): 40Ģý48.
5B. Canaud, ĢýOnline hemodiafiltration. Technical options and best clinical practicesĢý inHemodiafiltration, ed. C. Ronco, B. Canaud, and P. Aljama, Contributions to Nephrology (Basel: S.Karger AG, 2007), 110Ģý22.
6L. Pstras, C. Ronco, and J. Tattersall, ĢýBasic physics of hemodiafiltration,ĢýSeminars in Dialysis35, no. 5 (2022): 390Ģý404.
7F. Maduell, M. Arias, J. Garro, M. Vera, M. Fontsere, X. Barros, et al., [Guidelines for automated manual infusion: a practical way of prescribing postdilution online hemodiafiltration].Nefrologia30, no. 3 (2010): 349Ģý53.
8A.M. Zawada, T. Lang, B. Ottillinger, F. Kircelli, M. Stauss-Grabo, and J.P. Kennedy, ĢýImpact of Hydrophilic Modification of Synthetic Dialysis Membranes on Hemocompatibility and Performance,ĢýMembranes12, no. 10 (2022): 932.
9A.M. Zawada, P. Melchior, C. Schall, A. Erlenkotter, T. Lang, T. Keller, et al., ĢýTime-Resolving Characterization of Molecular Weight Retention Changes among Three Synthetic High-Flux Dialyzers,ĢýArtificial Organs46, no. 7 (2022): 1318Ģý27.
10P. Melchior, A. Erlenkotter, A.M. Zawada, D. Delinski, C. Schall, M. Stauss-Grabo, et al., ĢýComplement Activation by Dialysis Membranes and its Association with Secondary Membrane Formation and Surface Charge,ĢýArtificial Organs45, no. 7 (2021): 770Ģý78.
11G. Ehlerding, W. Ries, M. Kempkes-Koch, E. Ziegler, A. Erlenkotter, A.M.Zawada, et al., ĢýRandomized Comparison of Three High-Flux Dialyzers During High-Volume Online HemodiafiltrationĢýthe comPERFORM Study,ĢýClinical Kidney Journal15, no. 4 (2022): 672Ģý80.
12G. Ehlerding, A. Erlenkotter, A. Gauly, B. Griesshaber, J. Kennedy, L. Rauber, et al., ĢýPerformance and Hemocompatibility of a Novel Polysulfone Dialyzer: A Randomized Controlled Trial,ĢýKidney36021, no. 6 (2021): 937Ģý47.
13B. Canaud, P.J. Blankestijn, M.P.C. Grooteman, and A. Davenport, ĢýWhy and How High Volume Hemodiafiltration May Reduce Cardiovascular Mortality in Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease Dialysis Patients? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Mechanisms Involved,ĢýSeminars in Dialysis35, no. 2 (2022): 117Ģý28.
14T. Lang, A.M. Zawada, L. Theis, J. Braun, B. Ottillinger, P. Kopperschmidt, et al., ĢýHemodiafiltration: Technical and Medical Insights,ĢýBioengineering10, no.2 (2023): 145.
15F. Locatelli, P. Altieri, S. Andrulli, P. Bolasco, G. Sau, L.A. Pedrini, et al.,ĢýHemofiltration and Hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD,ĢýJournal of the American Society of Nephrology21, no. 10 (2010): 1798Ģý1807.
16J. Donauer, C. Schweiger, B. Rumberger, B. Krumme, and J. Bohler, ĢýReduction of Hypotensive Side Effects During Online-Haemodiafiltration and Low Temperature Haemodialysis,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation18, no. 8 (2003): 1616Ģý22.
17F.M.V. Sande, J.P. Kooman, C.J. Konings, and K.M.L. Leunissen, ĢýThermal Effects and Blood Pressure Response During Postdilution Hemodiafiltration and Hemodialysis: The Effect of Amount of Replacement Fluid and Dialysate Temperature,ĢýJournal of the American Society of Nephrology12, no. 9 (2001): 1916Ģý20.
18A. Rodriguez, M. Morena, A.S. Bargnoux, L. Chenine, H. Leray-Moragues, J.P. Cristol, et al., ĢýQuantitative Assessment of Sodium Mass Removal Using Ionic Dialysance and Sodium Gradient as a Proxy Tool: Comparison of High-Flux Hemodialysis versus Online Hemodiafiltration,ĢýArtificial Organs45, no. 8 (2021): E280ĢýE92.
19A. Czifra, A. Pall, J. Kulcsar, K. Barta, A. Kertesz, G. Paragh, et al., ĢýHemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration Differently Modulate Left Ventricular Diastolic Function,ĢýBMC Nephrology14 (2013): 76.
20V. La Milia, C. Ravasi, F. Carfagna, E. Alberghini, I. Baragetti, L. Buzzi, et al., ĢýSodium Removal and Plasma Tonicity Balance Are Not Different in Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration Using High-Flux Membranes,ĢýJournal of Nephrology32, no. 3 (2019): 461Ģý69.
21C.H. den Hoedt, M.L. Bots, M.P. Grooteman, N.C. van der Weerd, A.H.Mazairac, E.L. Penne, et al, ĢýOnline Hemodiafiltration Reduces Systemic Inflammation Compared to Low-Flux Hemodialysis,ĢýKidney International86, no. 2 (2014): 423Ģý32.
22A. Agbas, N. Canpolat, S. Caliskan, A. Yilmaz, H. Ekmekci, M. Mayes, et al., ĢýHemodiafiltration Is Associated with Reduced Inflammation, Oxidative Stress and Improved Endothelial Risk Profile Compared to High-Flux Hemodialysis in Children,ĢýPLoS One13, no. 6 (2018): e0198320.
23V. Filiopoulos, D. Hadjiyannakos, P. Metaxaki, V. Sideris, L. Takouli, A. Anogiati, et al., ĢýInflammation and Oxidative Stress in Patients on Hemodiafiltration,ĢýAmerican Journal of Nephrology28, no. 6 (2008): 949Ģý57.
24I.M. Mostovaya, P.J. Blankestijn, M.L. Bots, A. Covic, A. Davenport, M.P. Grooteman, et al., ĢýClinical Evidence on Hemodiafiltration: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis,ĢýSeminars in Dialysis27, no. 2 (2014): 119Ģý27.
25T. Ohtake, M. Oka, K. Ishioka, K. Honda, Y. Mochida, K. Maesato, et al., ĢýCardiovascular Protective Effects of On-line Hemodiafiltration: Comparison with Conventional Hemodialysis,ĢýTherapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis16, no. 2 (2012): 181Ģý88.
26E. Charitaki and A. Davenport, ĢýDoes Hemodiafiltration Reduce Vascular Stiffness Measured by Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity Compared with High-Flux Hemodialysis?ĢýHemodialysis International18, no. 2 (2014): 391Ģý95.
27R. Shroff, C. Smith, B. Ranchin, A.K. Bayazit, C.J. Stefanidis, V. Askiti, et al., ĢýEffects of Hemodiafiltration versus Conventional Hemodialysis in Children with ESKD: The HDF, Heart and Height Study,ĢýJournal of the American Society of Nephrology30, no. 4 (2019): 678Ģý91.
28J.W. Chang, W.S. Yang, J.W. Seo, J.S. Lee, S.K. Lee, and S.K. Park, ĢýContinuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis as Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients with Acute Renal Failure in the Intensive Care Unit,ĢýScandinavian Journal of Urology38, no. 5 (2004): 417Ģý21.
29I. Nistor, S.C. Palmer, J.C. Craig, V. Saglimbene, M. Vecchio, A. Covic, et al., ĢýConvective versus Diffusive Dialysis Therapies for Chronic Kidney Failure: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials,ĢýAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases63, no. 6 (2014): 954Ģý67.
30D. Marcelli, I. Bayh, J.I. Merello, P. Ponce, A. Heaton, F. Kircelli, et al., Dynamics of the Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agent Resistance Index in Incident Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis Patients,ĢýKidney International90, no. 1 (2016): 192Ģý202.
31V. Panichi, A. Scatena, A. Rosati, R. Giusti, G. Ferro, E. Malagnino, et al., ĢýHigh-Volume Online Haemodiafiltration Improves Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent (ESA) Resistance in Comparison with Low-Flux Bicarbonate Dialysis: Results of the REDERT Study,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation30, no. 4 (2015): 682Ģý89.
32P. Molina, B. Vizcaino, M.D. Molina, S. Beltran, M. Gonzalez-Moya, A. Mora, et al., ĢýThe Effect of High-Volume Online Haemodiafiltration on Nutritional Status and Body Composition: The ProtEin Stores prEservaTion (PESET) Study,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation33, no. 7 (2018): 1223Ģý35.
33M. Aichi, T. Kuragano, T. Iwasaki, S. Ookawa, M. Masumoto, K. Mizusaki, et al., ĢýHemodiafiltration Improves Low Levels of Health-Related Quality Of Life (Qol) and Nutritional Conditions of Hemodialysis Patients,ĢýASAIO Journal68, no. 2 (2022): 297Ģý302.
34R. Pecoits-Filho, J. Larkin, C.E. Poli-de-Figueiredo, A.L. Cuvello-Neto, A.B.L. Barra, P.B. Goncalves, et al, ĢýEffect of Hemodiafiltration on Measured Physical Activity: Primary Results of the HDFIT Randomized Controlled Trial,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation36, no. 6 (2021): 1057Ģý70.
35. A. Karkar, M. Abdelrahman, and F. Locatelli, ĢýA Randomized Trial on Health- Related Patient Satisfaction Level with High-Efficiency Online Hemodiafiltration versus High-Flux Dialysis,ĢýBlood Purification40. no. 1 (2015): 84Ģý91.
36.A. Hazim, L. Adarmouch, A. Eloury, J. Aasfara, M. Asly, and I. Slassi, ĢýHemodialysis-Related Headache: Still a Challenge in 2020? Effect of Conventional versus Online Hemodiafiltration from a Study in Casablanca, Morocco,ĢýArtificial Organs45, no. 6 (2021): 602Ģý7.
37.K. Kantartzi, S. Panagoutsos, E. Mourvati, A. Roumeliotis, K. Leivaditis, V. Devetzis, et al., ĢýCan Dialysis Modality Influence Quality of Life in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients? Low-Flux Hemodialysis versus High-Flux Hemodiafiltration: A Cross-Over Study,ĢýRenal Failure35, no. 2 (2013): 216Ģý21.
38.E. Vilar, A.C. Fry, D. Wellsted, J.E. Tattersall, R.N. Greenwood, and K. Farrington, ĢýLong-Term Outcomes in Online Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis: A Comparative Analysis,ĢýClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology4, no. 12 (2009): 1944Ģý53.
39.F. Maduell, F. Moreso, M. Pons, R. Ramos, J. Mora-Macia, J. Carreras, et al., ĢýHigh-Efficiency Postdilution Online Hemodiafiltration Reduces All-Cause Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients,ĢýJournal of the American Society of Nephrology24, no. 3 (2013): 487Ģý97.
40E. Ok, G. Asci, H. Toz, E.S. Ok, F. Kircelli, M. Yilmaz, et al., ĢýMortality and Cardiovascular Events in Online Haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) Compared with High-Flux Dialysis: Results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation28, no. 1 (2013): 192Ģý202.
41. M.P. Grooteman, M.A. van den Dorpel, M.L. Bots, E.L. Penne, N.C. van der Weerd, A.H. Mazairac, et al., ĢýEffect of Online Hemodiafiltration on All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes,ĢýJournal of the American Society of Nephrology23, no. 6 (2012): 1087Ģý96.
42.L. Mercadal, J.E. Franck, M. Metzger, P. Urena Torres, F. de Cornelissen, S. Edet, et al., ĢýHemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis and Survival in Patients With ESRD: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) Registry,ĢýAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases68, no. 2 (2016): 247Ģý55.
43.S.A. Peters, M.L. Bots, B. Canaud, A. Davenport, M.P. Grooteman, F. Kircelli, F. Locatelli, F. Maduell, M. Morena, M.J. Nubé, et al., ĢýHaemodiafiltration and Mortality in End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: A Pooled Individual Participant Data Analysis from Four Randomized Controlled Trials,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation31, no. 6 (June 2016): 978Ģý84.
44.L. Neri, K. Gurevich, Y. Zarya, S. Plavinskii, F. Bellocchio, S. Stuard, et al., ĢýPractice Patterns and Outcomes of Online Hemodiafiltration: A Real-World Evidence Study in a Russian Dialysis Network,ĢýBlood Purification50, no. 3 (2021): 309Ģý18.
45.G. Imamović, R. Hrvačević, S. Kapun, D. Marcelli, I. Bayh, A. Grassmann, et al., ĢýSurvival of Incident Patients on High-Volume Online Hemodiafiltration Compared to Low-Volume Online Hemodiafiltration and High-Flux Hemodialysis,ĢýInternational Urology and Nephrology46, no. 4 (2014): 1191Ģý200.
46.B. Canaud, C. Barbieri, D. Marcelli, F. Bellocchio, S. Bowry, F. Mari, et al., ĢýOptimal Convection Volume for Improving Patient Outcomes in an International Incident Dialysis Cohort Treated with Online Hemodiafiltration,ĢýKidney International88, no. 5 (2015): 1108Ģý16.
47.B. Canaud, I. Bayh, D. Marcelli, P. Ponce, J.I. Merello, K. Gurevich, et al., ĢýImproved Survival of Incident Patients with High-Volume Haemodiafiltration: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting,ĢýNephron129, no. 3 (2015): 179Ģý88.
48.F. Maduell, J. Varas, R. Ramos, A. Martin-Malo, R. Pérez-Garcia, I. Berdud, et al., ĢýHemodiafiltration Reduces All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Incident Hemodialysis Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study,ĢýAmerican Journal of Nephrology46, no. 4 (2017): 288Ģý97.
49.B. Canaud, J.L. Bragg-Gresham, M.R. Marshall, S. Desmeules, B.W. Gillespie, T. Depner, et al., ĢýMortality Risk for Patients Receiving Hemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis: European Results from the DOPPS,ĢýKidney International69, no. 11 (2006): 2087Ģý93.
50.E.J. See, J. Hedley, J.W.M. Agar, C.M. Hawley, D.W. Johnson, P.J. Kelly, et al., ĢýPatient Survival on Haemodiafiltration and Haemodialysis: A Cohort Study Using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation34, no. 2 (2019): 326Ģý38.
51.K. Kikuchi, T. Hamano, A. Wada, S. Nakai, and I. Masakane, ĢýPredilution Online Hemodiafiltration Is Associated With Improved Survival Compared with Hemodialysis,ĢýKidney International95, no. 4 (2019): 929Ģý38.
52.L. Mercadal, J.E. Franck, M. Metzger, P. Urena Torres, F. de Cornelissen, S. Edet, et al., ĢýFiltration versus Hemodialysis and Survival in Patients with ESRD: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) Registry,ĢýAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases68, no. 2 (2016): 247Ģý55.
53.P.J. Blankestijn, R.W.M. Vernooij, C. Hockham, G.F.M. Strippoli, B. Canaud, J. Hegbrant, et al., ĢýEffect of Hemodiafiltration or Hemodialysis on Mortality in Kidney Failure,ĢýNew England Journal of Medicine389, no. 8 (2023): 700Ģý709.
54.M. Morena, A. Jaussent, L. Chalabi, H. Leray-Moragues, L. Chenine, A. Debure, et al., ĢýTreatment Tolerance and Patient-Reported Outcomes Favor Online Hemodiafiltration Compared to High-Flux Hemodialysis in the Elderly,ĢýKidney International91, no. 6 (2017): 1495Ģý1509.
55.M.G.M. Guimarães, F.P.M. Tapioca, N.R. Dos Santos, F.P.D.C. Tourinho Ferreira, L.C. Santana Passos, and P.N. Rocha, ĢýHemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis in End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,ĢýKidney Medicine18, no 6 (2024): 1Ģý6.
56.Ģý,Market & Competitor Survey, Internal data of Ģý AG,last update year: 2022.
57.B. Canaud, K. Köhler, J.M. Sichart, and S. Möller, ĢýGlobal Prevalent Use, Trends and Practices in Haemodiafiltration,ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation35, no. 3 (2020): 398Ģý407.
58.Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Renal Data Registry, 2022 Annual Dialysis Data Report,JSDT Renal Data Registry(2024),
59.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), NICE guideline (NG107):Renal Replacement Therapy and Conservative Management(London: NICE; c2018),
60.P. de Sequera, R. Perez-Garcia, A. Vega, S. Martinez-Vaquera, J.G. Acosta, K. Perez Del Valle, et al., ĢýTrial Design of the MOTheR HDx Study: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Prospective, Randomized Study to Explore the Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Dialyzed with the Theranova HDx in Comparison with Online Hemodiafiltration,ĢýClinical Kidney Journal16, no. 11 (2023): 2254Ģý61.
61.R. Shroff, C. Basile, F. van der Sande, and S. Mitra, ĢýEuDial Working Group of the European Renal A. Haemodiafiltration for All: Are We CONVINCEd?ĢýNephrology Dialysis Transplantation38, no. 12 (2023): 2663Ģý5.
62.C. Bernard, A. Gagel, A. Peters, A. Maierhofer, and S. Stuard, ĢýDoes Online High-Volume Hemodiafiltration Offer Greater Efficiency and Sustainability Compared to High-Flux Hemodialysis? A Detailed Simulation Analysis Anchored in Real-World Data,ĢýClinical Kidney Journal(2024): sfae147
63.E. Gatti and C. Ronco, ĢýSeeking an Optimal Renal Replacement Therapy for the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemic: The Case for On-Line Hemodiafiltration,ĢýContribution to Nephrology175 (2011): 170Ģý85.