Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2023 Oct 16;37(1):23–37. doi: 10.1007/s40620-023-01771-0

Medium cut-off dialyzer for middle molecular uremic toxins in AKI and chronic dialysis

Marco Fiorentino 1, Francesco La Fergola 1, Silvia De Rosa 2,3,
PMCID: PMC10920419  PMID: 37843731

Abstract

Uremic toxins accumulate in patients affected by renal failure and can deposit in different organs, including the kidneys and heart. Given their physicochemical characteristics, uremic toxins can contribute to organ dysfunction due to several pathobiological actions at cellular and molecular levels. Several uremic compounds have been described in serum and plasma from patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and kidney failure; they are usually classified based on their molecular size and protein-binding properties. In this scenario, new dialytic approaches have been proposed in the last few years with the aim of improving uremic toxin removal. Recent studies which focused on the use of medium cut-off membranes in patients on chronic hemodialysis have shown a discrete ability to remove β2-microglobulin and other middle molecules, such as kappa and lambda free light chains, complement factor D and α1-microglobulin. However, current evidence is mainly based on the impact on short-term outcomes and, consequently, longer observational studies are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of the medium cut-off dialyzer. Here we present the state-of-the-art on the clinical application of medium cut-off membranes in AKI and chronic dialysis patients.

Graphical abstract

graphic file with name 40620_2023_1771_Figa_HTML.jpg

Keywords: Continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, Cytokine clearance, EMiC2 filter, Middle cut-off, Removal, Uremic toxins

Introduction

Recent advances in the pathophysiology of kidney disease and the advent of new treatments to control modifiable risk factors have limited both progression to end stage kidney disease (ESKD) and cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In addition, gut microbiota dysregulation has recently been described as one of the main factors associated with CKD progression, contributing to worsening of renal function and fluid, electrolyte, hormonal, and metabolic abnormalities [1]. In the context of kidney failure and uremia, several solutes are retained, exhibiting different physicochemical characteristics and specific biologic effects [2]. Uremic toxins are typically generated from protein metabolism and may accumulate in the bloodstream in patients with renal dysfunction, reaching different organs (including the kidneys and heart), affecting their biologic functions. Uremic syndrome is therefore characterized by the accumulation of several noxious substances, playing a prominent role in inducing endothelial dysfunction [3]. The recent introduction of novel dialytic membranes has led to a paradigm change in the management of uremic syndrome [4]. Recent studies on the use of the medium cut-off membranes in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients have shown the ability to remove β2-microglobulin and larger middle molecules, such as kappa and lambda free light chains, complement factor D, and α1-microglobulin [5]. Expanded hemodialysis with medium cut-off membranes was designed to improve the permeability of the dialyzers, the removal of larger molecules and, consequently, clinical outcomes [6]. In addition, the use of such membranes could be critical in specific settings, such as sepsis or rhabdomyolysis, that are associated with the development of acute kidney injury (AKI). To date, scientific evidence supporting the use of medium cut-off membranes is mainly based on retrospective and prospective studies with limited sample size and short-term outcomes; in this setting, longer observational studies are essential to confirm the efficacy and safety of the medium cut-off dialyzer. Herein, we discuss the state-of-the-art on the clinical application of medium cut-off membranes, describing their effects on removing uremic toxins, alleviating inflammation and improving quality of life and cardiovascular risk in AKI and CKD patients.

Methods

As a basis of this narrative review, we searched for publications between January 2012 and October 2023 indexed on PubMed. We selected relevant publications involving adults (defined as older than 18 years) and written in English. We used the terms “(uremic toxins) AND (MCO membrane) OR (Expanded hemodialysis) OR (High-Flux) OR (Super High-Flux) OR (Online Hemodiafiltration)”.

We used a combination of the terms and cross-referenced the publications to remove duplicates. We analyzed the references in each selected article to ensure that other publications not retrieved by the initial search were not missed. Since this was not a systematic review, we did not record the total number of publications analyzed, multiple publications and publications written in languages other than English.

Uremic toxins in AKI and CKD

According to the European Uremic Toxins (EUTox) Work Group [7], uremic toxins are defined as harmful compounds that accumulate in the body during periods of renal function decline [8, 9]. Uremic toxins progressively increase in CKD, promoting several biochemical and functional changes [10]. Uremic toxins may be classified according to their chemical nature (inorganic/organic), molecular mass/volume (small/middle/large), their distribution in body fluids (hydrophilic/lipophilic/bound to plasma proteins), pattern of removal by dialysis, biological properties and potential to produce clinical symptoms. The EUTox database currently lists more than 153 uremic toxins, with numbers increasing over time [9]. Based on chemical and physical characteristics, uremic toxins are conventionally divided into 3 groups, essentially on the basis of their removal by dialysis (Fig. 1):

  1. Small water-soluble compounds (< 500 Da), with minimal protein binding. These molecules, including urea and creatinine, are easily removed by hemodialysis. Of the 90 molecules evaluated by EUTox, 68 belong to this group.

  2. Medium compounds (molecular weight > 500 Da). β2–microglobulin (β2M) and leptin are the prototypes of this group; these toxins are partially removed by dialysis membranes with high permeability (large pores).

  3. Protein-bound compounds (including phenols and indoles). These compounds originate from the metabolism of dietary amino acids. In patients on chronic hemodialysis the removal is limited to the unbound fraction and occurs by convection, but is independent of dialyzer pore size. The EUTox classification does not describe the toxicity of these compounds.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Classification of uremic toxins

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of some uremic toxins. The Massry/Koch requirements for the identification of an ‘‘authentic’’ uremic toxin are based on chemical identification and characterization, levels and quantitative analysis in biological fluids, relationship with one or more uremia symptoms and reproducibility of uremic manifestations after administration of the toxin in animals or healthy subjects [11]. Figure 1 shows factors potentially influencing the toxicity of substances accumulating in uremia.

Table 1.

Main uremic toxin characteristics

Molecule Molecular weight Protein binding Origin Mechanism Dialyzability
Low molecular weight compounds not bound to protein
 Creatine 131 Da Free water soluble Endogenous metabolites of furan fatty acids Direct interaction with free oxygen radicals, which can induce cell damage Mainly extracted from plasma during HD
 Creatinine 113 Da Free water soluble Waste product generated by muscle metabolism Chloride channel blocking and reduction of the contractility of cultured myocardial cells Mainly extracted from plasma during HD
 Guanidine 59 Da Free water soluble Protein breakdown product Inhibition of neutrophil superoxide production, suppression of natural killer cell response to interleukin-2, abnormalities of vascular repair, increased manifestations of atherosclerosis, including leukocyte activation Mainly extracted from plasma during HD
 Oxalate 90 Da Free water soluble Toxin synthesized during purine metabolism Enhancement of atherogenesis; Immunomodulation through induced synthesis of cytokines, chemoattractants, and other inflammatory signal molecules causing degradation of IκBα in proximal tubular cells; unfavorable impact on mitochondrial function Efficient modern HD is usually enough to prevent intratissue deposition
 Urea 60 Da Free water soluble Waste generated from the breakdown of unused proteins in the liver Molecular changes related to insulin resistance, generation of reactive oxygen species, apoptosis, and disruption of the intestinal protective barrier Mainly extracted from plasma during HD
 Uric acid 168 Da Free water soluble The end product of purine metabolism Contribution to the genesis and progression of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease Removal in HD (during 1 HD session on average 1 g uric acid is eliminated)
Middle molecule compounds
 Adiponectin 30,000 Da N/A Protein hormone mainly produced by adipocytes Anti-inflammatory (suppression of M2 to M1, macrophage differentiation and inhibition of the production of proinflammatory cytokines), anti-dyslipidemic and anti-diabetic effects; Changes in arterial stiffness It is not removed readily by conventional HD, but it might be removed by high flux and HDF. Due to undialyzable characteristics and decreased excretion from impaired renal function, adiponectin level is elevated in patients receiving HD and PD
 Complement factor D 26,750 Da N/A Serine protease synthesized by adipocytes Enhancement of alternative pathway activation Some dialysis membranes (for example, AN69) adsorb complement factor D
 Cystatin C 13,300 Da N/A A non-glycosylated protein produced continuously by all cells in organs/tissues It is filtered in the renal glomeruli and completely reabsorbed by the renal tubules. Alterations of serum cystatin C were considered an early renal marker in diabetic patients, cardiovascular diseases kidney transplantation, hyperthyroidism, cancer High-flux membranes remove up to 50% of cystatin C
 Interleukin-1β 32,000 Da N/A Produced as an inactive 31 kDa precursor, termed pro-IL-1β, in response to molecular motifs carried by PAMPs Increased in diseased coronary arteries and correlates with plaque severity. IL-1 beta has also been associated with left ventricular hypertrophy in dialysis patients High cut-off hemofiltration techniques are more efficient in removing cytokines than standard techniques
 Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) 26,000 Da N/A Pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesized in large amounts by activated macrophages and T cells, but also by stressed epithelial and other cells It stimulates the release of inflammatory cytokines, upregulates the expression of endothelial adhesion molecules and chemokines, promotes cell death and decreases the expression of the anti-inflammatory and anti-aging protein Klotho High cut-off hemofiltration techniques are more efficient in removing cytokines than standard techniques
 β2- microglobulin 11,818 Da N/A Non-glycosylated polypeptide that forms the non-variable light chain of the Class 1 major histocompatibility complex Retention of β2M produces a disease related to the deposition of β2M amyloid fibrils around large joints such as shoulders and hips

Poorly removed by HD

Large-pore membranes adsorb substantial amounts of β2- microglobulin

Low molecular weight compounds bound to protein
 3-Carboxy-4-methyl-5-propyl-2-furanpropionate (CMPF) 240 Da More than 95% to albumin Metabolite of furan fatty acid and a marker of fish oil intake Interaction with free oxygen radicals, which can induce cell damage Clearance of the unbound fraction may be increased by the use of HDF, especially post-dilutional modes. “Leaky” dialysis membranes increase the clearance of such substances bound to plasma proteins
 Hippuric acid 179 Da 34–40% bound to albumin Gut-derived, protein-bound UT Hippuric acid may enhance toxicity of protein-bound drugs and uremic solutes by competing for protein binding Clearance of hippuric acid by HD is 64%
 Homocysteine (Hcy) 135 Da Covalently bound to albumin Sulfur-containing amino acid, produced by the demethylation of dietary methionine Hcy increases the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells (atherosclerosis), endothelial dysfunction, generation of reactive oxygen species and enhancement of thrombogenicity Partly removed during HD. Agents such as N-acetyl cysteine and mesna may displace Hcy from the protein binding site, facilitating removal during HD
 Indole-3-acetic acid 175 Da 80% bound to albumin Uremic indolic toxin derived from the metabolization of dietary tryptophan by the gut microbiota Agonist of the transcription factor AhR which regulates vascular inflammation, oxidative stress, and atherosclerosis Partly removed during HD, with a reduction rate of about 45% during the dialysis session. Removal of the protein-bound compounds during HD is limited and not enhanced during treatment with high-flux membranes
 Indoxyl sulfate 212 Da 95% bound to albumin A part of the dietary protein-derived tryptophan is metabolized into indole that is metabolized to indoxyl sulfate in the liver It stimulates progressive tubulointerstitial fibrosis and glomerular sclerosis by increasing the expression of transforming growth factor-beta1, a tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 and proalpha 1 (I) collagen, leading to a further loss of nephrons 32% cleared through dialysis
 p-Cresyl sulfate (PCS) 187 Da 90% bound to albumin Plasma PCS concentrations are determined mainly by intestinal uptake of p‐cresol, metabolism of p‐cresol to PCS, and renal excretion of PCS Accumulated PCS plays a role in activating leukocyte radical production, disturbing the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, promoting renal tubular cell damage, and interfering with insulin signaling pathways 64% cleared thought dialysis

β2M β2-microglobulin, Da Dalton, HD hemodialysis, HDF hemodiafiltration, PCS p-cresyl sulfate, UT uremic toxin

Although uremic toxins are usually filtered and excreted by the kidneys, they may accumulate in the setting of CKD and exert their uremic effects on various systems [12]. Their increased concentration is involved in the onset of several renal and non-renal complications that usually affect patients with kidney failure [13]. The accumulation of middle molecules are thought to participate in immune dysfunction, metabolic dysfunction (anorexia), inflammation and cardiovascular injury (cardiac hypertrophy, atherogenesis) [13, 14]. In addition, some of these compounds may accumulate in the central nervous system, and are involved in neurocognitive impairment  [15].

While the role of protein-bound uremic toxins in CKD is well established, limited information is available in the AKI setting [16]. Acute kidney injury is a serious and frequent condition predominately affecting critically ill patients and characterized by a sudden decrease in glomerular filtration rate and urine output due to tubular and endothelial injury [17]. The duration and severity of AKI episodes are major determinants of the risk of progression to CKD [18, 19]. Retention of some uremic toxins may contribute to organ dysfunction, impacting on mortality and renal recovery rate [16].

Uremic toxin removal by extracorporeal treatments

The removal of protein-bound uremic toxins represents a challenge in patients with kidney falure, and several extracorporeal blood purification strategies have been proposed to improve toxin removal [20]. Conventional hemodialysis is the main extracorporeal depuration technique, effective in eliminating small water-soluble compounds, while the removal of middle molecules and protein-bound toxins is limited (reduction rate < 30–35%), due to the protein-bond and the pore cutoff of low-flux membranes, that prevent albumin loss [20, 21]. Moreover, the increase in the number of dialysis sessions and/or in the treatment time may improve small and middle molecule removal, but not removal of protein-bound molecules [22].

In this scenario, the introduction of high-flux membranes and the development of hemodiafiltration (HDF) led to increased clearance of middle molecular weight molecules compared to conventional hemodialysis by enlarging the pore size and increasing convection [20, 23]. High flux membranes are characterized by increased permeability, with larger pore size and increased ultrafiltration coefficient [24]. However, albumin and mico-nutrient loss should be taken into account; in addition, the ability to remove protein-bound uremic toxins still remains limited [25]. Similarly, Lesaffer and co-workers compared the impact of high and low flux membranes on protein-bound uremic toxin removal and did not observe any significant differences (34.4% vs. 36.3% for indoxyl sulfate, 32% vs. 28% for p-cresyl sulfate) [21].

High cut-off membranes showed interesting results in protein-bound toxin removal, since they have larger pores able to remove molecules with a molecular weight up to 60 kDa. High cut-off membranes have been considered in the treatment of patients with acute kidney injury secondary to multiple myeloma [26] and severe sepsis [27]. However, a significant amount of albumin loss limits their routine use in chronic patients [28].

More recently, the introduction of medium cut-off membranes allows a dialytic approach called expanded hemodialysis, characterized by an improved ability to remove middle and large molecules, thereby improving chronic inflammatory status and clinical outcomes [5, 6, 29].

Medium cut-off membranes and the concept of Expanded Hemodialysis

Medium or high cut-off membranes have recently been introduced in the clinical practice [30, 31]. These membranes are usually composed of polyarylethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone, reaching a surface area of at least 1.6 m2 (the most commonly employed are Theranova 400 and Theranova 500, with an effective surface area of 1.7 m2 and 2.0 m2, respectively). Furthermore, they present tighter pore distribution with larger pore size compared to high flux, low flux and high cut-off membranes [30]. The pore radius is about 5 nm, which becomes about 3.5 nm after contact with blood, enough to allow the removal of uremic toxins up to 45 kDa. Pore size and distribution provide a peculiar permeability profile to medium cut-off membranes, while the sieving coefficient curve is an empirically derived function that depends on these two features [32]. The sieving curve of medium cut-off membranes is steep, characterized by high molecular weight retention onset and high molecular weight cut-off values. The point in the curve where the sieving coefficient is 0.9 determines the molecular weight retention onset (the point at which only 10% of solute is retained) [30, 32, 33]. The point in the curve in which the sieving coefficient is 0.1 determines the molecular weight cut-off (the point at which 90% of solute is retained). The molecular weight retention onset and the molecular weight cut-off of medium cut-off membranes are very close to each other, with a cut-off value similar to that of high flux membranes; however, this value is lower than albumin weight, leading therefore to lower albumin loss [30, 33]. Conversely, the retention onset differs as compared to high flux membranes: the retention onset for medium cut-off membranes is close to 12 kDa, while for the high flux membrane it is close to 1200 Da. This especially steep curve leads to increased removal of uremic toxins in the middle/high molecular weight range, with marginal leakage of albumin [34]. Moreover, manufacturers succeeded in reducing the thickness and the inner diameter of the fibers (from the standard 200 µm to 180 µm), resulting in an improvement of membrane permeability and dialysis efficiency due to a larger number of fibers in a more compact dialyzer and increasing the wall shear rate and optimizing blood flow [35]. In addition, the improvement of solute transfer is also related to internal filtration and back filtration [36]. Internal filtration predominates in the proximal part of medium cut-off membranes and allows higher convective rates compared to standard membranes, leading to increased removal of middle molecules, typically characterized by low diffusion coefficients [36]. Conversely, back filtration mainly occurs in the distal part of the dialyzer, and it is useful for compensating for the excessive filtration obtained in the proximal part without need for reinfusion (as in HDF) [30, 36]. The ultrafiltration control system of the dialysis machine regulates the process and provides the exact amount of net filtration required for the scheduled weight loss [36]. The advantage is that this treatment does not require significant pre- or post-dilution substitution fluid and high performing vascular access in order to guarantee a higher blood flow. The peculiar properties and inner filtration-back filtration mechanism allow the medium cut-off membranes to enhance the removal of middle molecules compared to high flux membranes.

The term expanded hemodialysis has been introduced to define hemodialytic treatments performed with medium cut-off dialyzers because of their ability to increase the range of molecular weight of uremic toxins removed. Standard dialysis machines (with UF control system) can perform extended dialysis without specific software or replacement solutions and with standard parameters (blood flow ≥ 300 mL/min and a dialysate flow 500 mL/min) [33, 37]. In expanded hemodialysis, the convective clearance (K) results from the product of UF rate (Qf) and sieving (S) of a selected solute (K = Qf × S). With medium cut-off membranes, high sieving for medium and large molecules is the key for achieving high convective clearance with lower convective volume. In HDF, the high convective clearance is reached by increasing Qf thanks to the combined pre- and post-dilution configuration in HDF, however, online HDF is not approved in many countries. Conversely, expanded hemodialysis achieves a high level of clearance for molecules like β-2microglobulin and free light chains, (molecular weight of 22.5 and 45 kDa for kappa and lambda, respectively) [29]. On expanded hemodialysis, however, albumin loss is not negligible, and is estimated between 1.2 and 3.5 g per dialysis session with different medium cut-off membranes [38]. While in healthy individuals hepatic synthesis may compensate the losses, they may be relevant in elderly and frail patients. Furthermore, albumin leakage may allow removal of protein bound uremic toxins, like indoxyl sulfate and p-cresyl sulfate [39] that are not otherwise removed due to their binding to albumin, despite their low molecular weight (< 500 Da) [4]. In addition, the removal of inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α) may be an added value of expanded hemodialysis [40, 41].

Effects of expanded HD on uremic toxin removal compared to high-flux HD and HDF

Several studies focused on the efficiency and safety of medium cut-off membranes compared to conventional HD and/or HDF. A detailed list of the main clinical studies is reported in Table 2. Overall, these studies reported increased performance of such membranes compared to high flux dialyzers, although this higher reduction ratio has not clearly been associated with long-term clinical outcomes, possibly due to the small sample sizes. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 prospective interventional studies including a total of 853 patients with ESKD confirmed the safety and efficacy of medium cut-off membranes compared to high flux-HD (increased reduction ratio of β-2microglobulin, kappa and lambda free light chains), while these effects are not evident compared to HDF; no significant differences in albumin loss were reported as compared to HDF [42]. β-2microglobulin has a molecular weight of 11 kDa and represents the standard marker of middle molecule. Middle cut-off membranes increase the reduction rate of β-2microglobulin as compared to high flux-HD and HDF [5, 4346]. However, rebound after expanded hemodialysis discontinuation was reported as with HDF [43], and long-term effects were not studied. Similarly, increased serum levels of kappa and lambda free light chains are associated with adverse outcomes in HD patients [47]. In a randomized controlled trial performed by Weiner et al., including 172 ESKD patients, the use of the Theranova 400 filter showed an increased reduction rate of both kappa and lambda free chains compared to standard high flux-HD [46]. Similar results were also described in 3 other randomized controlled trials [5, 45, 48]. In addition, conflicting results are available concerning removal of protein-bound toxins, including homocysteine, indoxyl sulfate and p-cresyl sulfate. Belmouaz et al. reported increased homocysteine removal with medium cut-off membranes compared to high flux-HD associated with moderate hypoalbuminemia [5]. However, the tRial Evaluating Mid cut-Off Value membrane clearance of Albumin and Light chains in HemoDialysis patients (REMOVAL-HD) did not show significant changes in indoxyl sulfate, sp-cresyl sulfate, fetuin-A, endogenous calciprotein particles (CPP-1 and CPP-2) in 89 ESKD patients [49]. New middle cut-off membranes have recently been developed, increasing the therapeutic options. The comparison between various medium cut-off membranes (Phylther 17-SD, Vie-18X, Elisio HX19 and Theranova 400) in a small prospective study carried out on 23 HD patients did not show significant differences in albumin loss. A new device (Elisio-17HX) with an inner diameter of 200 µm and a wall thickness of 40 µm, shows similar results to Theranova membranes. In a randomized controlled pilot study including 6 maintenance hemodialysis patients, Elisio-17HX was less efficient compared to Theranova though with a lower albumin loss [50].

Table 2.

Main studies focusing on the effect of medium cut-off membranes on middle molecule removal

Study ID Year Study design Pts Main findings
Zickler et al. [41] 2017 Randomized crossover trial, MCO-HD vs. HF-HD 48 After 4 weeks, reduced expression of TNF- α and IL-6 mRNA with MCO treatments. Reduced plasma levels of several cytokines, kappa and lambda FLCs
Kirsch et al. [44] 2017 Prospective, open-label, controlled, randomized crossover pilot study; MCO-HD vs. HF-HD and HDF 39 Reduction ratios of λFLC were greater for MCO. Clearances of α1-microglobulin, complement factor D, κFLC and myoglobin were greater with MCO with moderate albumin loss
Reque et al. [78] 2019 Prospective study, cross-over design, online HDF vs. MCO-HD 8 Increased reduction rate of myoglobin and prolactin with HDx compared to HDF, no differences in reduction rate of urea and β2-microglobulin
Maduell et al. [79] 2019 Prospective, single-center study, MCO-HD vs. 8 different dialyzers in HDF 22 No significant differences in the RRs of small and middle molecular range molecules between MCO vs. OL-HDF
Garcia-Petro et al. [80] 2018 Cross-over study, analysis of 3 single mid-week dialysis sessions for 3 consecutive weeks; HF-HD vs. MCO-HD 18 Increased reduction in β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α-1 glycoprotein, with limited albumin loss
Kim et al. [81] 2019 Clinical trial, analysis of midweek dialysis for 3 consecutive weeks between HF-HD vs. HDF vs. MCO-HD 6 MCO-HD showed greater RRs for myoglobin and λFLC than did HF-HD and OL-HDF. MCO-HD and HF-HD showed comparable RRs for β2-microglobulin. No significant difference in the RRs for κFLC and FGF-23. MCO HD showed improved clearances for FLCs when compared to HF-HD or OL-HDF
Cho et al. [43] 2019 Prospective cohort study, HF-HD vs. MCO-HD over a 12-month follow-up 57 Improved reduction rate of FLCs, β2-microglobulin, with no significant changes in long-term effects
Arrascue et al. [82] 2022 Randomized control trial, HDF vs. HDx with 24-week follow up 43 Significant decrease in YKL-40 and reduced use of ESAs in the HDx arm. No significant differences in β2-microglobulin, FGF-23, FLCs and inflammatory marker removal
Cordeiro et. al [83] 2020 Prospective crossover trial; switch from HF-HD to HDF and MCO-HD for 4 weeks 16 β2-microglobulin clearance with on HDF and MCO-HD was higher compared to HF-HD treatment
Belmouaz et al. [84] 2018 Retrospective study, online HDF switched to MCO-HD 10 No significant differences in removal of albumin, urea, creatinine, β2-microglobulin and myoglobin
Lindgren et. al [85] 2020 Prospective controlled single-center cross-over study; MCO-HD vs. online HDF 16 No differences in RR of middle molecules between the two treatments
Lim et al. [52] 2020 Randomized control trial, HF-HD vs. MCO-HD over 12 weeks of treatment 49 Removal of kappa and lambda FLCs was greater for MCO dialyzer than high-flux dialyzer. Higher scores in the domains of physical functioning and physical role in QOL form. Lower scores for morning pruritus distribution and less frequent scratching during sleep
Weiner et al. [46] 2020 Randomized control trial, MCO-HD vs. HF-HD over a 24-week period 172 Higher reduction rate for FLCs, β2-microglobulin, TNF-α, but not for IL-6. Similar predialysis albumin level after 24 weeks of treatment
Krishnasamy et al. [48] 2020 Multicenter, cross-over, longitudinal study, 4-weeks with HF-HD followed by a 24-week period with MCO-HD and then 4 weeks with HF-HD 89 No significant reduction in serum albumin. No improvement in restless leg syndrome, quality of life. Sustained reduction in FLCs in the first 2 weeks after MCO-HD initiation with consequent increase after return to HF-HD
Sevinc et al. [45] 2020 Randomized control trial, HF-HD for 3 months followed by MCO-HD for 3 months or vice-versa 52 Higher reduction rate and post-dialysis levels of β2-microglobulin, FLCs and myoglobin compared to HF-HD. No difference in inflammatory markers. VEGF levels were lower in the MCO group
Belmouaz et. al [5] 2020 Cross-over prospective study, 3 months MCO-HD vs. 3 months HF-HD 40 Higher removal of myoglobin, β2-microglobulin, FLCs, FGF23, homocysteine, with moderate hypoalbuminemia
Yeter et al. [40] 2020 Comparative study, LF-HD vs. HF-HD vs. MCO-HD 42 Reduction in CRP with MCO membranes in a subgroup analysis of 19 patients with high CRP at baseline. No differences in oxidative stress
Reis et al. [6] 2021 Retrospective study, switch to MCO-HD for 2 months, then return to HF-HD 15 Reduction in mean α1-acid glycoprotein and lower median pre-dialysis prolactin concentration during MCO-HD period. β2-Microglobulin increased in the post-MCO phase. Significant reduction in albumin during MCO phase
Perez-Alba et al. [86] 2020 Case series, switched to home HD with MCO 7 β2-microglobulin significantly reduced over 12-month follow-up period, without significant albumin loss and with less use of phosphate binders
Rambabova et al. [87] 2020 12-week observational pilot study, HDx vs. HF-HD 4 Higher average removal rate for β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, FLC-k, and FLC-λ during the 3 months
Cozzolino et. al [29] 2021 Prospective, open label, controlled, cross-over pilot study HDx vs. HD 20 Significant reduction in serum albumin concentration without clinical symptoms of hypoalbuminemia or need for intravenous albumin administration. Reduction of IL-1β and IL-6 levels, while TNF-α levels remained unchanged
Sanabria et. al [54] 2021 Multicenter, observational cohort study, HF-HD switched to HDx for 1 year 81 Decreased hospitalization rate and mean dose of ESAs and iron supplementation after switch to HDx
Catar et al. [88] 2021 Cross-over randomized multicenter comparison, HF-HD vs. MCO-HD 48 MCO treatments modulate proinflammatory mediators and TNF-signaling activation, leading to reduced endothelial maladaptation, VEGF production and angiogenesis
Eiamcharoenying et al. [89] 2022 Randomized controlled trial, MCO-HD vs. mixed dilution online HDF 14 Significant increase in RR of α-1 M and lambda FLC, without significant changes in albumin levels
Blackowicz et al. [90] 2022 Post-hoc analysis of randomized control trial [44], HF-HD vs. MCO-HD 172 Reduced hospitalization rate by 45% in the MCO group with lower average annual estimated costs
Maduell et al. [38] 2022 Prospective study, analysis of 4 MCO membranes vs. HF-HD and HDF 23 All four MCO dialyzers showed similar efficacy in removing myoglobin, κFLC, prolactin, α1-microglobulin and λFLC. RRs with MCO membranes were superior to HD and slightly inferior to HDF treatment. Albumin loss with HF-HD dialyzers was < 1 g and between 1.5 and 2.5 g in HDx and HDF
Krieter et al50 2023 Randomized controlled trial in HD patients, comparing Elisio-17HX to Theranova 400 MCO membranes 6 Elisio-17HX achieved slightly lower reduction ratios for β2-microglobulin (71.8 ± 6.0 vs. 75.3 ± 5.8%; p = 0.001), myoglobin (54.7 ± 8.6 vs. 64.9 ± 8.7%; p < 0.001), and kappa-FLC (62.1 ± 8.8 vs. 56.3 ± 7.7%; p = 0.021). λFLC reduction ratios were not different between Elisio-17HX and Theranova (28.4 ± 3.9 vs. 38.7 ± 13.4%; p = 0.069). The albumin loss of Theranova was considerably higher (2.14 ± 0.45 vs. 0.77 ± 0.25 g; p = 0.001)

CRP C-reactive protein; ESA erythropoietin-stimulating agent; FGF23 fibroblast growth factor 23; λFLC lambda free light chain; κFLC kappa free light chain; HDx expanded hemodialysis; HDF hemodiafiltration; HF-HD high flux hemodialysis; IL-6 interleukin 6; LF-HD low flux hemodialysis; MCO medium cut-off; QOL quality of life; OL-HDF online hemodiafiltration; RR reduction rate; TNF tumor necrosis factor; YKL-40 chitinase‐3-like protein 1; VEGF vascular endothelial growth factor

Potential clinical and socio-economic impact of expanded HD

Accumulation of uremic toxins in ESKD patients is associated with physical symptoms (fatigue, itching, restless leg syndrome) and reduced quality of life; thus efficient removal may improve symptoms and patients’ quality of life.

In a Colombian prospective, multicenter observational study including 992 patients, Alcaron et al. showed that 3 of 5 domains of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-Item Short Form Survey (KDQoL-SF36) improved after the switch from high flux-HD to expanded hemodialysis for 12 months [51]. Moreover, the prevalence of patients with restless leg syndrome was significantly reduced at 12 months (22.1 vs. 10%, p < 0.001) [51]. Similar results were shown by Lim et al. who enrolled 49 patients on chronic HD randomized to either a medium cut-off membrane or high flux-HD [52]: patients in the medium cut-off group reported higher scores in the physical functioning and physical role domains of KDQoL-SF36, while they reported reduced scores for morning pruritus and lower frequency of scratching during sleep [52].

Further studies have focused on the effect on inflammation and oxidative stress markers that is associated with endothelial dysfunction, vascular calcification, increased cardiovascular risk, malnutrition and mortality [14]. Zickler et al. reported reduced expression of pro-inflammatory TNF-α and IL-6 mRNA in peripheral leukocytes in patients treated with medium cut-off membranes compared to high flux-HD, even though cytokine levels over the 12 weeks of follow-up were not significantly different [41]. Studies on the role of oxidative stress gave controversial results [5, 29, 45]. A recent clinical study by Lee and colleagues did not show any significant differences on several cardiovascular parameters such as echocardiography, changes in brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity between expanded HD and online HDF [53]. Moreover, the coronary artery calcium score over 1 year increased in the expanded HD group [53].

A relevant point is also that expanded HD has been associated with cost reduction. In fact, extended HD does not require a large volume of fluids as compared to HDF, and if lower hospitalization and hospital stay rates per patient-year, found in a cohort of 81 patients are confirmed this could lead to considerable savings [54]. Moreover, less use of erythtopoietin-stimulating agents and iron supplementation has been reported, suggesting that the improved removal of inflammatory mediators may improve iron metabolism and erythtopoietin-stimulating agent resistance.

Middle cut-off membranes in the context of AKI

Acute kidney injury is a complex clinical syndrome associated with high costs of hospitalization, mortality, and long-term complications (progression to CKD, cardiovascular diseases) [17, 19]. Sepsis is one of the main causes of AKI [55, 56]. Mortality in septic patients with AKI requiring renal replacement therapy is still very high, reaching 60% [55]. One of the hallmarks of sepsis is the imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, leading to multi-organ dysfunction [57]. For this reason, critically ill patients with sepsis-associated AKI may benefit from extracorporeal blood purification therapies in an effort to remove inflammatory mediators and decrease cytokine gradient between blood and tissues, leading to restoration of immune balance and reducing the risk of organ failure [58]. Among the proposed modalities, high-volume hemofiltration, high cut-off membranes and adsorption cartridges have been proposed, with controversial results. High cut-off membranes with a cutoff up to 60 kDa demonstrated higher cytokine removal compared to conventional HD membranes [5962]. However, the albumin and antibiotic loss associated with their use, in addition to the limited effects on hemodynamic support and overall mortality, have limited their application in clinical practice [63].

Recently, the EMiC2 filter (Fresenius, Bad Homburg, Germany) has been introduced in clinical practice: it is a polysulfone-based membrane with a cutoff of 45 kDa. These characteristics make it suitable for the removal of middle molecules, such as k-free light chains (23 kDa), myoglobin (17 kDa) and β-2microglobulin (17 kDa) [6466] and some studies reported higher removal of IL-6 and IL-8 compared to standard high flux membranes [67, 68]. Lumlergul and colleagues performed a prospective observational study and analyzed the actual clearance of middle molecular weight molecules (IL-1β, IL-1, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, VEGF, EGF, MCP-1) in vivo, using the EMiC2 filter in 12 critically ill patients with sepsis-associated AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (continuous veno-venous hemodialysis) [69]. The authors showed a significant reduction in plasma concentrations of all analyzed molecules over a 48-h period after continuous veno-venous hemodialysis initiation, except for EGF. However, the effluent clearance rates were low for most cytokines with minimal adsorption effects made by the filter, suggesting that the overall reduced plasma concentration is only partially related to dialytic clearance and that other mechanisms may contribute to the observed changes [69]. Recently, Comoglu et al. analyzed the effects of medium cut-off membranes in a cohort of 38 patients with sepsis-associated AKI who received 2 hemodialytic treatments with 2 different membranes (19 patients started treatment with a high flux membrane and then switched to a medium cut-off membrane, the remaining 19 patients were first treated with a medium cut-off membrane, and then switched to a high flux membrane) [70]. The reduction of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-1β was significantly higher during HD treatment with medium cut-off membranes than with high flux, while no differences were reported among markers of oxidative stress [70]. Recently, a single center crossover randomized study enrolling 20 patients with septic shock and AKI stage 3 comparing the EmiC2 filter with a high-flux membrane showed significant hemodynamic improvement and greater β2 microglobulin removal in the EmiC2 group [71].

Moreover, blunting the hyperinflammatory state characterized by the so-called “cytokine storm” has been one of the main targets in treating severe forms of COVID-19. In this setting, the use of HDF or expanded HD was proposed to maximize cytokine clearance in HD patients [72, 73]. Serrano Salazar et al. performed a prospective observational study including 18 patients with COVID-19 infection who required hemodialysis and compared online HDF, expanded HD and a control group of 8 HD patients without COVID-19 infection with regard to removal of several cytokines, β2 microglobulin and albumin [74]. Expanded hemodialysis provided the best clearance for TNF-α (67 vs. 54% in online HDF) and β2 microglobulin during HD sessions, without significant albumin loss [74]. In addition, mortality was higher in the HDF group (57.1 vs. 18.2%), albeit not statistically significant, due to the limited sample size [74].

A further indication may be kidney injury in multiple myeloma related to cast nephropathy in which free light chain removal is a therapeutic target. In this setting, few case reports showed that medium cut-off membranes were effective in the removal of free light chains favoring kidney function recovery [75].

Finally, myoglobin removal may be pivotal in patients with AKI secondary to rhabdomyolysis, a common complication during crush syndrome and other conditions (trauma, ischemia, hyperthermia, drug intoxication). The use of medium cut-off membranes in such conditions has been reported in both intermittent and continuous dialysis modalities [76, 77]. Jerman et al. reported the efficacy of high cut-off and medium cut-off membranes in removing myoglobin in 15 patients with AKI and rhabdomyolysis when comparing these filters to specific cytokine adsorbers [77].

Taken together, the present evidence on the use of medium cut-off membranes in AKI is limited and mainly consists of observational studies focusing on the clearance of middle molecules, most of them not powered to assess association with clinical outcomes. In addition, AKI patients are extremely heterogeneous; further work is required to better assess the role of such membranes in clinical practice.

Conclusions

The recent development of medium cut-off membranes characterized by high-retention-onset and the introduction of the concept of expanded HD represents a step forward in personalized approaches in HD. Medium cut-off membranes are able to remove medium–high uremic toxins, such as β2-microglobulin, free light chains, myoglobin and others, that are associated with inflammation, cardiovascular events and mortality in both acute and chronic dialysis patients. Since the current evidence is limited, further larger and long-term studies are needed.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, MF and SDR; research methodology, MF and SDR; literature search FLF; writing MF and FLF; writing review and editing, S.D.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Trento within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This research received no external funding.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable. No ethical approval is required.

Informed consent

Informed consents were not required because the article did not contain individual patient data or new findings.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Vanholder R, et al. Review on uraemic solutes II–variability in reported concentrations: causes and consequences. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22:3115–3121. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vanholder R, et al. A bench to bedside view of uremic toxins. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:863–870. doi: 10.1681/asn.2007121377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Meijers BK, Evenepoel P. The gut-kidney axis: indoxyl sulfate, p-cresyl sulfate and CKD progression. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:759–761. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Clark WR, Dehghani NL, Narsimhan V, Ronco C. Uremic toxins and their relation to dialysis efficacy. Blood Purif. 2019;48:299–314. doi: 10.1159/000502331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Belmouaz M, et al. Comparison of the removal of uraemic toxins with medium cut-off and high-flux dialysers: a randomized clinical trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2020;35:328–335. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfz189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Reis T, et al. Removal of middle molecules with medium cutoff dialyzer in patients on short frequent hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2021;25:180–187. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vanholder R, Argilés A, Baurmeister U, et al. Uremic toxicity: present state of the art. Int J Artif Organs. 2001;24(10):695–725. doi: 10.1177/039139880102401004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vanholder R, et al. Review on uremic toxins: classification, concentration, and interindividual variability. Kidney Int. 2003;63:1934–1943. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00924.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vanholder R, Glorieux G, De Smet R, Lameire N. New insights in uremic toxins. Kidney Int. 2003;63:S6–S10. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.63.s84.43.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Glassock RJ. Uremic toxins: what are they? An integrated overview of pathobiology and classification. J Ren Nutr. 2008;18:2–6. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2007.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Massry SG. Is parathyroid hormone a uremic toxin? Nephron. 1977;19:125–130. doi: 10.1159/000180876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caggiano G, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation in reducing uremic toxins accumulation in kidney disease: current understanding and future perspectives. Toxins (Basel) 2023 doi: 10.3390/toxins15020115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ciceri P, Cozzolino M. Expanded haemodialysis as a current strategy to remove uremic toxins. Toxins (Basel) 2021 doi: 10.3390/toxins13060380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cozzolino M, et al. Cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33:iii28–iii34. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfy174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Viggiano D, et al. Mechanisms of cognitive dysfunction in CKD. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16:452–469. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-0266-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Herget-Rosenthal S, Glorieux G, Jankowski J, Jankowski V. Uremic toxins in acute kidney injury. Semin Dial. 2009;22:445–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2009.00598.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fiorentino M, Castellano G, Kellum JA. Differences in acute kidney injury ascertainment for clinical and preclinical studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:1789–1805. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfx002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fiorentino M, et al. Long-term survival in patients with septic acute kidney injury is strongly influenced by renal recovery. PLoS ONE. 2018 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Peerapornratana S, Fiorentino M, Priyanka P, Murugan R, Kellum JA. Recovery after AKI: effects on outcomes over 15 years. J Crit Care. 2023;76:154280. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yamamoto S, et al. Removal of uremic toxins by renal replacement therapies: a review of current progress and future perspectives. Renal Replace Ther. 2016;2:43. doi: 10.1186/s41100-016-0056-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lesaffer G, et al. Intradialytic removal of protein-bound uraemic toxins: role of solute characteristics and of dialyser membrane. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000;15:50–57. doi: 10.1093/ndt/15.1.50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Basile C, et al. Removal of uraemic retention solutes in standard bicarbonate haemodialysis and long-hour slow-flow bicarbonate haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;26:1296–1303. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Krieter DH, et al. Protein-bound uraemic toxin removal in haemodialysis and post-dilution haemodiafiltration. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;25:212–218. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfp437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Palmer SC, et al. High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012:Cd005016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005016.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.van Gelder MK, et al. Protein-bound uremic toxins in hemodialysis patients relate to residual kidney function, are not influenced by convective transport, and do not relate to outcome. Toxins (Basel) 2020 doi: 10.3390/toxins12040234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hutchison CA, et al. Treatment of acute renal failure secondary to multiple myeloma with chemotherapy and extended high cut-off hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:745–754. doi: 10.2215/cjn.04590908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rimmelé T, Kellum JA. Clinical review: blood purification for sepsis. Crit Care. 2011;15:205. doi: 10.1186/cc9411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gondouin B, Hutchison CA. High cut-off dialysis membranes: current uses and future potential. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2011;18:180–187. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2011.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cozzolino M, Magagnoli L, Ciceri P, Conte F, Galassi A. Effects of a medium cut-off (Theranova(®)) dialyser on haemodialysis patients: a prospective, cross-over study. Clin Kidney J. 2021;14:382–389. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfz155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ronco C, et al. Expanded haemodialysis: from operational mechanism to clinical results. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33:iii41–iii47. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfy202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang Z, et al. Effects of expanded hemodialysis with medium cut-off membranes on maintenance hemodialysis patients: a review. Membranes (Basel) 2022 doi: 10.3390/membranes12030253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ronco C. The rise of expanded hemodialysis. Blood Purif. 2017;44:I–Viii. doi: 10.1159/000476012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ronco C, La Manna G. Expanded hemodialysis: a new therapy for a new class of membranes. Contrib Nephrol. 2017;190:124–133. doi: 10.1159/000468959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Maduell F, Broseta JJ. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) versus expanded hemodialysis (HDx) Semin Dial. 2022;35:436–439. doi: 10.1111/sdi.13071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jonny J, Teressa M. Expanded hemodialysis: a new concept of renal replacement therapy. J Investig Med. 2023;71:38–41. doi: 10.1136/jim-2022-002431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lorenzin A, et al. Quantification of internal filtration in hollow fiber hemodialyzers with medium cut-off membrane. Blood Purif. 2018;46:196–204. doi: 10.1159/000489993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Heyne N. Expanded hemodialysis therapy: prescription and delivery. Contrib Nephrol. 2017;191:153–157. doi: 10.1159/000479263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Maduell F, et al. Comparison of four medium cut-off dialyzers. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15:2292–2299. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfac167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Viaene L, et al. Albumin is the main plasma binding protein for indoxyl sulfate and p-cresyl sulfate. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2013;34:165–175. doi: 10.1002/bdd.1834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yeter HH, et al. Effects of medium cut-off dialysis membranes on inflammation and oxidative stress in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020;52:1779–1789. doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02562-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zickler D, et al. Medium cut-off (MCO) membranes reduce inflammation in chronic dialysis patients-a randomized controlled clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0169024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhao Y, Gan L, Niu Q, Ni M, Zuo L. Efficacy and safety of expanded hemodialysis in hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ren Fail. 2022;44:541–550. doi: 10.1080/0886022x.2022.2048855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cho NJ, et al. Long-term effect of medium cut-off dialyzer on middle uremic toxins and cell-free hemoglobin. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0220448. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kirsch AH, et al. Performance of hemodialysis with novel medium cut-off dialyzers. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:165–172. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfw310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sevinc M, et al. Comparison of circulating levels of uremic toxins in hemodialysis patients treated with medium cut-off membranes and high-flux membranes: theranova in sisli hamidiye etfal (THE SHE) randomized control study. Blood Purif. 2020;49:733–742. doi: 10.1159/000508061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Weiner DE, et al. Efficacy and safety of expanded hemodialysis with the theranova 400 dialyzer: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;15:1310–1319. doi: 10.2215/cjn.01210120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fraser SDS, et al. The association of serum free light chains with mortality and progression to end-stage renal disease in chronic kidney disease: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92:1671–1681. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Krishnasamy R, et al. A tRial evaluating mid cut-off value membrane clearance of albumin and light chains in hemodialysis patients: a safety device study. Blood Purif. 2020;49:468–478. doi: 10.1159/000505567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tiong MK, et al. Effect of a medium cut-off dialyzer on protein-bound uremic toxins and mineral metabolism markers in patients on hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2021 doi: 10.1111/hdi.12924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Krieter DH, Rüth M, Lemke H-D, Wanner C. Clinical performance comparison of two medium cut-off dialyzers. Ther Apheresis Dial. 2023;27:284–292. doi: 10.1111/1744-9987.13919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Alarcon JC, et al. Impact of medium cut-off dialyzers on patient-reported outcomes: COREXH registry. Blood Purif. 2021;50:110–118. doi: 10.1159/000508803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lim J-H, et al. Randomized controlled trial of medium cut-off versus high-flux dialyzers on quality of life outcomes in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Sci Rep. 2020;10:7780. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64622-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lee Y, et al. Cardiovascular risk comparison between expanded hemodialysis using theranova and online hemodiafiltration (CARTOON): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10807. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90311-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sanabria RM, et al. Expanded hemodialysis and its effects on hospitalizations and medication usage: a cohort study. Nephron. 2021;145:179–187. doi: 10.1159/000513328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bellomo R, et al. Acute kidney injury in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:816–828. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4755-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ronco C, Bellomo R, Kellum JA. Acute kidney injury. Lancet. 2019;394:1949–1964. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32563-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:840–851. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Govil D, Kumar GP. Extracorporeal therapy in sepsis. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24:S117–s121. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Morgera S, et al. Renal replacement therapy with high-cutoff hemofilters: Impact of convection and diffusion on cytokine clearances and protein status. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:444–453. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2003.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chelazzi C, et al. Hemodialysis with high cut-off hemodialyzers in patients with multi-drug resistant gram-negative sepsis and acute kidney injury: a retrospective, case-control study. Blood Purif. 2016;42:186–193. doi: 10.1159/000446978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Atan R, et al. High cut-off hemofiltration versus standard hemofiltration: effect on plasma cytokines. Int J Artif Organs. 2016;39:479–486. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Villa G, et al. Organ dysfunction during continuous veno-venous high cut-off hemodialysis in patients with septic acute kidney injury: a prospective observational study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0172039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Atan R, et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of high cutoff versus standard hemofiltration in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e988–e994. doi: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Jayaballa M, et al. Effective removal of κ-free light chains with hemodialysis using fresenius ultraflux® EMiC®2 dialyser in a patient with myeloma cast nephropathy, with associated cost savings. Blood Purif. 2016;42:158–159. doi: 10.1159/000446176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Weidhase L, et al. Middle molecule clearance with high cut-off dialyzer versus high-flux dialyzer using continuous veno-venous hemodialysis with regional citrate anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0215823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lyubimova NV, et al. Free immunoglobulin light chains as criteria of extracorporeal hemocorrection in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2017;163:493–496. doi: 10.1007/s10517-017-3836-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Eichhorn T, et al. Clearance of selected plasma cytokines with continuous veno-venous hemodialysis using ultraflux EMiC2 versus ultraflux AV1000S. Blood Purif. 2017;44:260–266. doi: 10.1159/000478965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Balgobin S, et al. Continuous veno-venous high cut-off hemodialysis compared to continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration in intensive care unit acute kidney injury patients. Blood Purif. 2018;46:248–256. doi: 10.1159/000489082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lumlertgul N, Hall A, Camporota L, Crichton S, Ostermann M. Clearance of inflammatory cytokines in patients with septic acute kidney injury during renal replacement therapy using the EMiC2 filter (Clic-AKI study) Crit Care. 2021;25:39. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03476-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Comoglu M, et al. Effects of medium cutoff membranes on pro-inflammatory cytokine and oxidative marker levels in patients with sepsis who developed acute kidney injury. Blood Purif. 2022;51:772–779. doi: 10.1159/000519881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ferrari F, et al. Clinical assessment of continuous hemodialysis with the medium cutoff EMiC®2 membrane in patients with septic shock. Blood Purif. 2022;51:912–922. doi: 10.1159/000522321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Durvasula R, Wellington T, McNamara E, Watnick S. COVID-19 and kidney failure in the acute care setting: our experience from seattle. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76:4–6. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.04.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ronco C, Reis T, Cozzolino M. Rationale for medium cutoff membranes in COVID-19 patients requiring renal replacement therapy. Nephron. 2020;144:550–554. doi: 10.1159/000509807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Serrano Salazar ML, et al. Effect of expanded hemodialysis with theranova® in patients with COVID-19. Blood Purif. 2022;51:857–865. doi: 10.1159/000520891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Koniman R, et al. The use of medium cutoff dialyzers in patients with multiple myeloma and acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis: a systematic review. Sem Dial. 2023;36:12–17. doi: 10.1111/sdi.13115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Mariano F, et al. Clearance of NT-proBNP and procalcitonin during continuous venovenous hemodialysis with the medium cutoff filter in patients with rhabdomyolysis-associated early acute kidney injury. Blood Purif. 2023 doi: 10.1159/000528861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Jerman A, Andonova M, Persic V, Gubensek J. Extracorporeal removal of myoglobin in patients with rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury: comparison of high and medium cut-off membrane and an adsorber cartridge. Blood Purif. 2022;51:907–911. doi: 10.1159/000521923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Reque J, et al. Is expanded hemodialysis an option to online hemodiafiltration for small- and middle-sized molecules clearance? Blood Purif. 2019;47:126–131. doi: 10.1159/000493910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Maduell F, et al. Medium cut-off dialyzer versus eight hemodiafiltration dialyzers: comparison using a global removal score. Blood Purif. 2019;48:167–174. doi: 10.1159/000499759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.García-Prieto A, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of a medium cut-off dialyser and comparison with other high-flux dialysers in conventional haemodialysis and online haemodiafiltration. Clin Kidney J. 2018;11:742–746. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfy004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Kim TH, et al. Removal of large middle molecules via haemodialysis with medium cut-off membranes at lower blood flow rates: an observational prospective study. BMC Nephrol. 2019;21:2. doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1669-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Hadad-Arrascue F, Nilsson LG, Rivera AS, Bernardo AA, Cabezuelo Romero JB. Expanded hemodialysis as effective alternative to on-line hemodiafiltration: a randomized mid-term clinical trial. Ther Apher Dial. 2022;26:37–44. doi: 10.1111/1744-9987.13700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Cordeiro ISF, et al. High-flux versus high-retention-onset membranes: in vivo small and middle molecules kinetics in convective dialysis modalities. Blood Purif. 2020;49:8–15. doi: 10.1159/000502082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Belmouaz M, et al. Comparison of hemodialysis with medium cut-off dialyzer and on-line hemodiafiltration on the removal of small and middle-sized molecules. Clin Nephrol. 2018;89(2018):50–56. doi: 10.5414/cn109133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Lindgren A, Fjellstedt E, Christensson A. Comparison of hemodialysis using a medium cutoff dialyzer versus hemodiafiltration: a controlled cross-over study. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2020;13:273–280. doi: 10.2147/ijnrd.S263110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pérez-Alba A, Reque-Santiváñez J, Vázquez-Gómez M, Pons-Prades R. Expanded home hemodialysis: case reports. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020;52:977–980. doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02455-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rambabova Bushljetik I, et al. Efficacy of medium cut-off dialyzer and comparison with standard high-flux hemodialysis. Blood Purif. 2021;50:492–498. doi: 10.1159/000511983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Catar R, et al. Expanded hemodialysis therapy ameliorates uremia-induced systemic microinflammation and endothelial dysfunction by modulating VEGF, TNF-α and AP-1 signaling. Front Immunol. 2021;12:774052. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.774052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Eiamcharoenying J, et al. Comparative effectiveness between expanded hemodialysis (hemodialysis using a medium cut-off dialyzer) and mixed-dilution online hemodiafiltration using a high-flux dialyzer in removing middle-molecule uremic toxins. Blood Purif. 2022;51:923–931. doi: 10.1159/000521886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Blackowicz MJ, Falzon L, Beck W, Tran H, Weiner DE. Economic evaluation of expanded hemodialysis with the Theranova 400 dialyzer: a post hoc evaluation of a randomized clinical trial in the United States. Hemodial Int. 2022;26:449–455. doi: 10.1111/hdi.13015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Nephrology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES