A review of the evidence for the use of haemodiafiltration

Journal article

Dainton, M. 2017. A review of the evidence for the use of haemodiafiltration. Journal of Kidney Care. 2 (6), pp. 320-325. https://doi.org/10.12968/jokc.2017.2.6.320
AuthorsDainton, M.

Most patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are supported with maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and this has been the case for many years. Recent improvements in water quality have led to the increased use of high-flux HD and more recently of online-haemodiafiltration (HDF). HDF has been promoted by some clinicians and by renal industry as potentially offering improved clinical and quality of life outcomes for patients over conventional HD. However, despite such benefits making theoretical sense very few studies of the use of HDF as compared to HD (especially high-flux HD) have been able to demonstrate any significant benefit for the therapy.

This article reviews the most recent research that has compared HDF and HD and has identified that the evidence for the benefit of HDF remains elusive. This article, therefore, concludes that there is currently still not sufficient evidence from the research to support the contention that HDF confers benefits to patients over conventional HD and thereby no compelling evidence to justify its widespread use as a preferred form of treatment.

KeywordsHaemodiafiltration; haemodialysis; evidence review; end-stage kidney disease
JournalJournal of Kidney Care
Journal citation2 (6), pp. 320-325
PublisherMA Healthcare
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.12968/jokc.2017.2.6.320
FunderNo external funders
Publication dates
Online22 Nov 2017
Publication process dates
Deposited07 Dec 2017
Accepted03 Nov 2017
Accepted author manuscript
Output statusPublished

Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry.
Thirty-fifth annual report. 2012. http://tinyurl.com/
ydev8vx6 (accessed 3 November 2017)
Basile C, Davenport A, Blankestijn PJ. Why choose high
volume online post-dilution hemodiafiltration? J
Nephrol. 2017;30(2):181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Davenport A, Gardner C, Delaney M, Pan Thames Renal
Audit Group. The effect of dialysis modality on phosphate
control: haemodialysis compared to haemodiafiltration.
The Pan Thames Renal Audit. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
2010;25(3):897–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfp560
Dey V, Hair M, So B, Spalding EM. Thrice-weekly
nocturnal in-centre haemodiafiltration: a 2-year
experience. Nephron Extra. 2015;5(2):50–57. https://doi.
European Renal Association-European Dialysis and
Transplant Association Registry. ERA-EDTA registry
annual report 2015. 2015. http://tinyurl.com/ycymrg8h
(accessed 7 November 2017)
Hill KE, Kim S, Crail S et al. A comparison of self-reported
quality of life for an Australian haemodialysis and
haemodiafiltration cohort. Nephrology (Carlton).
2017;22(8):624–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12832
Jean G, Hurot J-M, Deleaval P et al. Onlinehaemodiafiltration
vs conventional haemodialysis: a
cross-over study. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16
Locatelli F, Karaboyas A, Pisoni RL et al. Mortality risk in
patients on hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: a
‘real-world’ comparison from the DOPPS. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfx277
Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M et al. High-efficiency
postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces allcause
mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc
Nephrol. 2013;24(3):487–497. https://doi.org/10.1681/
Mahon A, Jenkins K, Burnapp L, editors. Oxford handbook
of renal nursing. First edition. (Oxford handbooks in
nursing). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013
Nagaoka Y, Matsumoto H, Okada T et al. Benefits of first-half
intensive haemodiafiltration for the removal of uraemic
solutes. Nephrology (Carlton). 2011;16(5):476–482.
Nistor I, Palmer SC, Craig JC et al. Haemodiafiltration,
haemofiltration and haemodialysis for end-stage kidney
disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(5):CD006258.
Oates T, Pinney JH, Davenport A. Haemodiafiltration versus
high-flux haemodialysis: effects on phosphate control and
erythropoietin response. Am J Nephrol. 2011;33(1):70–75.
Pedrini LA, Cozzi G, Faranna P et al. Transmembrane
pressure modulation in high-volume mixed
hemodiafiltration to optimize efficiency and minimize
protein loss. Kidney Int. 2006;69(3):573–579. https://doi.
Peters SAE, Bots ML, Canaud B et al. Haemodiafiltration
and mortality in end-stage kidney disease patients: a
pooled individual participant data analysis from four
randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
2016;31(6):978–984. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv349
Rabindranath KS, Strippoli GF, Daly C et al.
Haemodiafiltration, haemofiltration and haemodialysis
for end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2006(4):CD006258. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
Susantitaphong P, Tiranathanagul K, Katavetin P et al.
Efficacy comparison between simple mixed-dilution and
simple mid-dilution on-line hemodiafiltration techniques:
a crossover study. Artif Organs. 2012;36(12):1059–1065.
Tattersall J, Martin-Malo A, Pedrini L et al. EBPG guideline
on dialysis strategies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22
Suppl 2:ii5-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfm022
Thomas N, ed. Renal nursing. 4th edn. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons; 2014
University of Bristol. The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs
high-flux haemodialysis registry trial. http://tinyurl.com/
yauetzoa (accessed 7 November 2017)

Permalink -


Download files

Accepted author manuscript
  • 4
    total views
  • 2
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Home haemodialysis for older patients: barriers and enablers
Dainton, M. 2018. Home haemodialysis for older patients: barriers and enablers. Journal of Renal Nursing. 3 (5), pp. 286-290. https://doi.org/10.12968/jokc.2018.3.5.286
Shared care: a pathway for the rejuvenation of home haemodialysis?
Dainton, M. 2016. Shared care: a pathway for the rejuvenation of home haemodialysis? Journal of Kidney Care. 1 (3), pp. 116-122. https://doi.org/10.12968/jokc.2016.1.3.116