Integrating Monitoring of Volume Status and Blood Volume-Controlled Ultrafiltration into Extracorporeal Kidney Replacement Therapy

Sebastian Zschätzsch,1 Manuela Stauss-Grabo,2 Adelheid Gauly,2 Jennifer Braun2 1Center for Kidney and Blood Pressure Diseases, Georg-Haas-Dialysis Center, Giessen, Germany; 2Fresenius Medical Care, Global Medical Office, Bad Homburg, GermanyCorrespondence: Adelheid GaulyFresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Global Medical Office, Else-Kröner-Strasse 3, Bad Homburg, 61352, GermanyTel +49 6172 6092260Email adelheid.gauly@fmc-ag.comPurpose: Volume management in hemodialysis (HD) requires the ability to assess volume status objectively and determine treatment strategies that achieve euvolemia without compromising hemodynamic stability. The aim of this study was to compare dialysis with and without blood volume-controlled ultrafiltration (UF) in combination with body composition monitoring, and to evaluate indicators for adequate dialysis (Kt/V), ultrafiltration volume, fluid status, and the occurrence of intradialytic morbid events (IME).Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing hemodialysis or on-line hemodiafiltration with support of a blood volume monitor (BVM) – a feedback control device integrated into the 5008 and 6008 HD systems – were enrolled. Patients received treatment for four weeks using the 6008 CAREsystem and the BVM (6008+). Data on dialysis dose (Kt/V), UF volume and predialysis fluid status were documented. This data was also documented retrospectively for four weeks with (5008+) and without (5008−) the use of the BVM with the 5008 system. Comparisons were analyzed using linear mixed models.Results: Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Kt/V was unaffected by blood volume-controlled UF (5008− vs 5008+: p=0.230) and was equally achieved with both HD systems (5008+ vs 6008+: p=0.922). The UF volume and fluid status achieved were comparable, independent of the use of UF control with BVM (5008− vs 5008+; UF volume: p=0.166; fluid overload: p=0.390) or the HD system (5008+ vs 6008+: UF volume: p=0.003; fluid overload: p=0.838), except for UF volume being higher in the 6008+ phase. IMEs occurred in less than 3% of treatments, with no difference between study phases.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a clinical approach to kidney replacement therapy that tracks volume status and manages intradialytic fluid removal by blood volume-controlled UF delivers adequate dialysis without compromising fluid removal. It maintains volume status and ensures low incidence of IMEs.Keywords: fluid status, blood volume monitoring, body composition monitoring, dialysis dose, intradialytic morbid event