Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit

Montpellier, France

Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit

Montpellier, France
Time filter
Source Type

Hazelbag C.M.,Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care | Peters S.A.E.,Julius Center for Health science and Primary Care | Peters S.A.E.,University of Oxford | Blankestijn P.J.,University Utrecht | And 14 more authors.
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation | Year: 2017

Background. During the follow-up in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), participants may receive additional (non-randomly allocated) treatment that affects the outcome. Typically such additional treatment is not taken into account in evaluation of the results. Two pivotal trials of the effects of hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus hemodialysis (HD) on mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease reported differing results. We set out to evaluate to what extent methods to take other treatments (i.e. renal transplantation) into account may explain the difference in findings between RCTs. This is illustrated using a clinical example of two RCTs estimating the effect of HDF versus HD on mortality. Methods. Using individual patient data from the Estudio de Supervivencia de Hemodiafiltración On-Line (ESHOL; n= 902) and The Dutch CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST; n=714) trials, five methods for estimating the effect of HDF versus HD on all-cause mortality were compared: intention-totreat (ITT) analysis (i.e. not taking renal transplantation into account), per protocol exclusion (PPexcl; exclusion of patients who receive transplantation), PPcens (censoring patients at the time of transplantation), transplantation-adjusted (TA) analysis and an extension of the TA analysis (TAext) with additional adjustment for variables related to both the risk of receiving a transplant and the risk of an outcome (transplantation-outcome confounders). Cox proportional hazardsmodels were applied. Results. Unadjusted ITT analysis of all-cause mortality led to differing results between CONTRAST and ESHOL: hazard ratio (HR) 0.95 (95% CI 0.75-1.20) and HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.59-0.97), respectively; difference between 5 and 24% risk reductions. Similar differences between the two trials were observed for the other unadjusted analytical methods (PPcens, PPexcl, TA) The HRs of HDF versus HD treatment became more similar after adding transplantation as a time-varying covariate and including transplantation-outcome confounders: HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.69- 1.13) in CONTRAST and HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.02) in ESHOL. Conclusions. The apparent differences in estimated treatment effects between two dialysis trials were to a large extent attributable to differences in applied methodology for taking renal transplantation into account in their final analyses. Our results exemplify the necessity of careful consideration of the treatment effect of interest when estimating the therapeutic effect in RCTs in which participantsmay receive additional treatments. © 2017 The Author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.

Peters S.A.E.,University of Oxford | Peters S.A.E.,University Utrecht | Bots M.L.,University Utrecht | Canaud B.,Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit | And 16 more authors.
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation | Year: 2016

Background Mortality rates remain high for haemodialysis (HD) patients and simply increasing the HD dose to remove more small solutes does not improve survival. Online haemodiafiltration (HDF) provides additional clearance of larger toxins compared with standard HD. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HDF with conventional HD on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients reported inconsistent results and were at high risk of bias. We conducted a pooled individual participant data analysis of RCTs to provide the most reliable evidence to date on the effects of HDF on mortality outcomes in ESKD patients. Methods Individual participant data were used from four trials that compared online HDF with HD and were designed to examine the effects of HDF on mortality endpoints. Bias by informative censoring of patients was resolved. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on all-cause and cause-specific mortality were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression models. The relationship between convection volume and the study outcomes was examined by delivered convection volume standardized to body surface area. Results After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1-Q3: 1.9-3.0), 769 of the 2793 participants had died (292 cardiovascular deaths). Online HDF reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 14% (95% CI: 1%; 25%) and cardiovascular mortality by 23% (95% CI: 3%; 39%). There was no evidence for a differential effect in subgroups. The largest survival benefit was for patients receiving the highest delivered convection volume [>23 L per 1.73 m2 body surface area (BSA) per session], with a multivariable-adjusted HR of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.62; 0.98) for all-cause mortality and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.47; 1.00) for cardiovascular disease mortality. Conclusions This pooled individual participant analysis on the effects of online HDF compared with conventional HD indicates that online HDF reduces the risk of mortality in ESKD patients. This effect holds across a variety of important clinical subgroups of patients and is most pronounced for those receiving a higher convection volume normalized to BSA. © 2015 The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.

Morena M.,Biochemistry Laboratory | Morena M.,Montpellier University | Morena M.,Dialysis Research and Training Institute | Jaussent I.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research | And 15 more authors.
Hemodialysis International | Year: 2010

This prospective observational study aimed at evaluating efficacy and biocompatibility performances of the new heparin-coated Evodial dialyzers with/without systemic heparin reduction. After a 4-week wash-out period with reference polysulfone F70S dialyzers, 6 hemodialysis patients were sequentially dialyzed with Evodial, F70S, and Evodial dialyzers using 30% heparin reduction, each period of treatment was 4 weeks. Removal rates (RR) (urea, creatinine, and β2-microglobulin), dialysis dose, and instantaneous clearances (urea and creatinine) were measured as well as inflammatory (C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor α, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1) and oxidative stress (OS) (superoxide anion, homocysteine, and isoprostanes) parameters at the end of each study period. Patients treated with Evodial or F70S dialyzers for 4 weeks presented comparable dialysis efficacy parameters including urea and creatinine RR, dialysis dose and instantaneous clearances. By contrast, a significantly lower but reasonably good β2-microglobulin RR was achieved with Evodial dialyzers. Regarding biocompatibility, no significant difference was observed with inflammation and OS except for postdialysis monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 which significantly decreased with Evodial dialyzers. Thirty percent heparinization reduction with Evodial dialyzers did not induce any change in inflammation but led to an improvement in OS as demonstrated by a decrease in postdialysis superoxide production and predialysis homocysteine and isoprostane. This bioactive dialyzer together with heparin dose reduction represents a good trade-off between efficacy and biocompatibility performance (improvement in OS with a weak decrease in efficacy) and its use is encouraging for hemodialysis patients not only in reducing OS but also in improving patient comorbid conditions due to lesser heparin side effects. © 2010 The Authors. Hemodialysis International © 2010 International Society for Hemodialysis.

Canaud B.,Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit | Canaud B.,Dialysis Research and Training Institute | Vallee A.G.,Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit | Molinari N.,UMR 729 MISTEA | And 12 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2014

Background and Objectives: Protein-energy wasting is common in long-term haemodialysis (HD) patients with chronic kidney disease and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The creatinine index (CI) is a simple and useful nutritional parameter reflecting the dietary skeletal muscle protein intake and skeletal muscle mass of the patient. Because of the complexity of creatinine kinetic modeling (CKM) to derive CI, we developed a more simplified formula to estimate CI in HD patients. Design, Setting, Participants & Measurements: A large database of 549 HD patients followed over more than 20 years including monthly CKM-derived CI values was used to develop a simple equation based on patient demographics, predialysis serum creatinine values and dialysis dose (spKt/V) using mixed regression models. Results: The equation to estimate CI was developed based on age, gender, pre-dialysis serum creatinine concentrations and spKt/V urea. The equation-derived CI correlated strongly with the measured CI using CKM (correlation coefficient = 0.79, p-value <0.001). The mean error of CI prediction using the equation was 13.47%. Preliminary examples of few typical HD patients have been used to illustrate the clinical relevance and potential usefulness of CI. Conclusions: The elementary equation used to derive CI using demographic parameters, pre-dialysis serum creatinine concentrations and dialysis dose is a simple and accurate surrogate measure for muscle mass estimation. However, the predictive value of the simplified CI assessment method on mortality deserves further evaluation in large cohorts of HD patients. © 2014 Canaud et al.

Loading Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit collaborators
Loading Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit collaborators