American journal of translational research · 2026
Comparison of clinical therapeutic effects between high-flux dialysis and low-flux dialysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Yunyi, Chi Xianggeng, Cao Rui, He Xiaofan, Chi-Wa Ao-Ieong, Yun Chen, Yang Lifeng, Liu Huanhuan, Zhu Shouping, Wang Yihan, Zeng Huiyi, He Donghao, Xie Ting, Gu Yingming, Tang Shuifu, Li Weilong, Song Zhuoheng, Luan Shaodong, Gong Wenyu, Zha Aiyun, Xu Suhua, Yu Huixia, Yin Lianghong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of, as well as effects on micro-inflammatory and metabolic acidosis between high-flux and low-flux dialysis in the hemodialysis population.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study, based on pre-defined blood sample data completeness criteria, screened and included treatment records of 187 patients undergoing high-flux dialysis and 189 patients undergoing low-flux dialysis from 2016 to 2018. Ultimately, 374 dialysis sessions meeting the completeness criteria from the high-flux group and 378 sessions from the low-flux group were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, clinical tolerance, dialysis efficiency, serum laboratory parameters, micro-inflammatory status, and metabolic acidosis indicators were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited good biocompatibility, with effective removal of excess water and uremic toxins from the body. Contrastingly, high-flux dialysis was better than low-flux dialysis in removing moderate and small molecule toxins, maintaining blood pressure and acid-base balance in the body.
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides useful insights into the comparative efficacy, micro-inflammation, and metabolic acidosis of high-flux and low-flux dialysis. These findings support the preferential use of high-flux dialysis to enhance solute clearance and correct acidosis, while affirming that both modalities are well-tolerated. The choice should be individualized based on patient characteristics and treatment goals.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study, based on pre-defined blood sample data completeness criteria, screened and included treatment records of 187 patients undergoing high-flux dialysis and 189 patients undergoing low-flux dialysis from 2016 to 2018. Ultimately, 374 dialysis sessions meeting the completeness criteria from the high-flux group and 378 sessions from the low-flux group were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, clinical tolerance, dialysis efficiency, serum laboratory parameters, micro-inflammatory status, and metabolic acidosis indicators were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited good biocompatibility, with effective removal of excess water and uremic toxins from the body. Contrastingly, high-flux dialysis was better than low-flux dialysis in removing moderate and small molecule toxins, maintaining blood pressure and acid-base balance in the body.
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides useful insights into the comparative efficacy, micro-inflammation, and metabolic acidosis of high-flux and low-flux dialysis. These findings support the preferential use of high-flux dialysis to enhance solute clearance and correct acidosis, while affirming that both modalities are well-tolerated. The choice should be individualized based on patient characteristics and treatment goals.