Is hemodiafiltration superior to high-flow hemodialysis in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in kidney failure patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: Hemodiafiltration (HDF) and high-flux hemodialysis (hf-HD) are different methods of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) used for the treatment of kidney failure patients. A debate has raged over the last decade about the survival benefit of patients with the use of HDF compared with hf-HD, but with divergent results from randomized controlled trials. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare HDF and hf-HD regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Methods: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched until July 19, 2023, for randomized clinical trials comparing HDF and hf-HD in patients on maintenance dialysis. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.1, applying fixed or random effect models according to the heterogeneity between studies.

Findings: Of the 496 studies found, five met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the hf-HD group, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with HDF use was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.88, I = 0%). HDF was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, although the sensitivity analysis showed that the result differed between scenarios. Subgroup analysis showed lower all-cause mortality among patients without diabetes in the HDF group compared with hf-HD (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81, I = 0%), but not in diabetic patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.12, I = 0.0%). A subgroup analysis considering convection volumes was not performed, but the studies with the highest weight in the meta-analysis described convection volume as more than 20 L/session.

Discussion: More clinical studies considering critical risk factors, such as advanced age and preexisting cardiovascular disease, are needed to confirm the supremacy of HDF over hf-HD on the survival of patients treated by these two forms of kidney replacement therapy.