High‐permeability alternatives to current dialyzers performing both high‐flux hemodialysis and postdilution online hemodiafiltration

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Most high‐flux dialyzers can be used in both hemodialysis (HD) and online hemodiafiltration (OL‐HDF). However, some of these dialyzers have higher permeability and should not be prescribed for OL‐HDF to avoid high albumin losses. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a currently used dialyzer in HD and OL‐HDF with those of several other high permeability dialyzers which should only be used in HD. A prospective, single‐center study was carried out in 21 patients. Each patient underwent 5 dialysis sessions with routine dialysis parameters: 2 sessions with Helixone (HD and postdilution OL‐HDF) and 1 session each with steam sterilized polyphenylene, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and medium cut‐off (MCO) dialyzers in HD treatment. The removal ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>‐microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐microglobulin, α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. A proportional part of the dialysate was collected to quantify the loss of various solutes, including albumin. Urea and creatinine RRs with the Helixone‐HDF and MCO dialyzers were higher than with the other 3 dialyzers in HD. The β<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>‐microglobulin, myoglobin and prolactin RRs with Helixone‐HDF treatment were significantly higher than those obtained with all 4 dialyzers in HD treatment. The β<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>‐microglobulin value obtained with the MCO dialyzer was also higher than that obtained with the other 3 dialyzers in HD treatment. The myoglobin RR with MCO was higher than those obtained with Helixone and PMMA in HD treatment. The prolactin RR with Helixone‐HD was significantly lower than those obtained in the other 4 study sessions. The α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐microglobulin and α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐ acid glycoprotein RRs with Helixone‐HDF were significantly higher than those obtained with Helixone and PMMA in HD treatment. The albumin loss varied from 0.54 g with Helixone‐HD to 3.3 g with polyphenylene. The global removal score values ((Urea<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> + β<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>‐microglobulin<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> + myoglobin<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> + prolactin<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> + α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐microglobulin<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> + α<jats:sub>1</jats:sub>‐acid glycoprotein<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub> – albumin<jats:sub>RR</jats:sub>)/6) were 43.7% with Helixone‐HD, 47.7% with PMMA, 54% with polyphenylene, 54.8% with MCO and 59.6% with Helixone‐HDF, with significant differences. In conclusion, this study confirms the superiority of OL‐HDF over HD with the high‐flux dialyzers that allow both treatments. Although new dialyzers with high permeability can only be used in HD, they are in an intermediate position and some are very close to OL‐HDF.</jats:p>