Efficacy comparison between simple mixed-dilution and simple mid-dilution on-line hemodiafiltration techniques: a crossover study.

Mid-dilution and mixed-dilution on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) techniques are innovated to overcome the limitations of two standard techniques including predilution and postdilution. Unfortunately, the head-to-head comparisons between these two novel techniques in the same study are still limited. Moreover, the original mid-dilution and mixed-dilution OL-HDF need special dialyzers and special machines. In the present study, simple mid-dilution and simple mixed-dilution OL-HDF were settled with the aim for clinical use in general hemodialysis (HD) centers. The efficacies of uremic toxins removal between both modalities were measured and compared. This prospective randomized crossover study was conducted on 12 stable HD patients undergoing simple mixed-dilution and simple mid-dilution OL-HDF techniques. HD prescriptions were similar in both techniques. The dialysis efficacies were determined by calculating small- (urea, creatinine, and phosphate) and middle-molecule (beta-2 microglobulin [β2M]) removal. Moreover, potential complications such as high transmembrane pressure (TMP) and protein loss were also observed. Simple mixed-dilution OL-HDF provided significantly greater clearances of urea, creatinine, and β2M when compared with the simple mid-dilution OL-HDF techniques. Phosphate clearances in both techniques were comparable. In addition, TMP and dialysate albumin loss were not different. There were no intradialytic complications in both techniques. Simple mixed-dilution OL-HDF could provide greater efficacy for small- and middle-molecule clearances and acceptable potential risks, while phosphate removal is comparable.