Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2021
Effect of hemodiafiltration on measured physical activity: primary results of the HDFIT randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Pecoits-Filho Roberto, Larkin John, Poli-de-Figueiredo Carlos Eduardo, Cuvello-Neto Américo Lourenço, Barra Ana Beatriz Lesqueves, Gonçalves Priscila Bezerra, Sheth Shimul, Guedes Murilo, Han Maggie, Calice-Silva Viviane, de Castro Manuel Carlos Martins, Kotanko Peter, de Moraes Thyago Proenca, Raimann Jochen G, Canziani Maria Eugenia F, HDFIT Study Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are typically inactive and their physical activity (PA) decreases over time. Uremic toxicity has been suggested as a potential causal factor of low PA in dialysis patients. Post-dilution high-volume online hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides greater higher molecular weight removal and studies suggest better clinical/patient-reported outcomes compared with hemodialysis (HD).
METHODS: HDFIT was a randomized controlled trial at 13 clinics in Brazil that aimed to investigate the effects of HDF on measured PA (step counts) as a primary outcome. Stable HD patients (vintage 3-24 months) were randomized to receive HDF or high-flux HD. Treatment effect of HDF on the primary outcome from baseline to 3 and 6 months was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model.
RESULTS: We randomized 195 patients (HDF 97; HD 98) between August 2016 and October 2017. Despite the achievement of a high convective volume in the majority of sessions and a positive impact on solute removal, the treatment effect HDF on the primary outcome was +538 [95% confidence interval (CI) -330 to 1407] steps/24 h after dialysis compared with HD, and was not statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the observed size of the treatment effect was modest and driven by steps taken between 1.5 and 24.0 h after dialysis, in particular between 20 and 24 h (+197 steps; 95% CI -95 to 488).
CONCLUSIONS: HDF did not have a statistically significant treatment effect on PA 24 h following dialysis, albeit effect sizes may be clinically meaningful and deserve further investigation.
METHODS: HDFIT was a randomized controlled trial at 13 clinics in Brazil that aimed to investigate the effects of HDF on measured PA (step counts) as a primary outcome. Stable HD patients (vintage 3-24 months) were randomized to receive HDF or high-flux HD. Treatment effect of HDF on the primary outcome from baseline to 3 and 6 months was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model.
RESULTS: We randomized 195 patients (HDF 97; HD 98) between August 2016 and October 2017. Despite the achievement of a high convective volume in the majority of sessions and a positive impact on solute removal, the treatment effect HDF on the primary outcome was +538 [95% confidence interval (CI) -330 to 1407] steps/24 h after dialysis compared with HD, and was not statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the observed size of the treatment effect was modest and driven by steps taken between 1.5 and 24.0 h after dialysis, in particular between 20 and 24 h (+197 steps; 95% CI -95 to 488).
CONCLUSIONS: HDF did not have a statistically significant treatment effect on PA 24 h following dialysis, albeit effect sizes may be clinically meaningful and deserve further investigation.