{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05675909878682842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03986135181975736, 'mean_word_length': 4.458628841607565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study.

BACKGROUND
Online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) is considered to confer clinical benefits over haemodialysis (HD) in terms of solute removal in patients undergoing maintenance HD. The aim of this study was to compare postdilution OL-HDF and high-flux HD in terms of morbidity and mortality.


METHODS
In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we enrolled 782 patients undergoing thrice-weekly HD and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to either postdilution OL-HDF or high-flux HD. The mean age of patients was 56.5 ± 13.9 years, time on HD 57.9 ± 44.6 months with a diabetes incidence of 34.7%. The follow-up period was 2 years, with the mean follow-up of 22.7 ± 10.9 months. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The major secondary outcomes were cardiovascular and overall mortality, intradialytic complications, hospitalization rate, changes in several laboratory parameters and medications used.


RESULTS
The filtration volume in OL-HDF was 17.2 ± 1.3 L. Primary outcome was not different between the groups (event-free survival of 77.6% in OL-HDF versus 74.8% in the high-flux group, P = 0.28), as well as cardiovascular and overall survival, hospitalization rate and number of hypotensive episodes. In a post hoc analysis, the subgroup of OL-HDF patients treated with a median substitution volume >17.4 L per session (high-efficiency OL-HDF, n = 195) had better cardiovascular (P = 0.002) and overall survival (P = 0.03) compared with the high-flux HD group. In adjusted Cox-regression analysis, treatment with high-efficiency OL-HDF was associated with a 46% risk reduction for overall mortality {RR = 0.54 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.31-0.93], P = 0.02} and a 71% risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality [RR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.65), P = 0.003] compared with high-flux HD.


CONCLUSIONS
The composite of all-cause mortality and nonfatal cardiovascular event rate was not different in the OL-HDF and in the high-flux HD groups. In a post hoc analysis, OL-HDF treatment with substitution volumes over 17.4 L was associated with better cardiovascular and overall survival.