300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

43 active trials for Hemodialysis

Impact of Clotting on Dialyzer Efficiency

Coagulation within the dialyzer membrane fibres is an obvious biological sign of bio-incompatibility. To avoid clotting during extracorporeal treatment, an anticoagulant is added to the circuit, resulting in an increased risk for bleeding complications. In addition, there is evidence that a substantial number of fibers can become blocked before this is reflected in routinely observed parameters, or in termination of the dialysis session. Little is known about the impact of such subclinical clotting on dialyzer performance in terms of solute clearance. Membrane clogging may influence both the diffusive and convective transport characteristics of the dialyzer membrane before leading to complete dialyzer clotting. In 2018, we described a method to objectively count the number of blocked fibres inside a dialyzer using a micro-CT scanning technique. In the present trial, we use this method to assess the number of open fibers post dialysis, and this for three different dialysis durations and in two different dialyzer types. Just before the termination of the dialysis session, dialyzer clearance is assessed for different solutes from concentration measurements in blood samples as taken from the dialyzer inlet and outlet line. The aim of this randomized cross-over study is to objectively quantify the impact of blocked fibers on the performance of different dialyzer membranes: ATA™ (asymmetric triacetate) membrane in the Solacea™ dialyzer, and polysulfone membrane in the FX800Cordiax dialyzer, and this with a decreased anticoagulation dose.

Start: March 2021
China Q Cohort Study

The burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is increasing worldwide. Although kidney transplantation is the most cost-effective renal replacement therapy, dialysis is still the main way to treat ESRD patients due to the limited kidney donor, with approximately 89% of such dialysis patients receive hemodialysis (HD) and the remainder receive peritoneal dialysis (PD). This distribution of dialysis modality, however, varies widely by health jurisdiction. For instance, more than 97% of dialysis patients are treated with HD in Japan, but more than 50% treated with PD in Mexico. Evidence comparing the two modalities suggests that mortality risks may be comparable, but all evidence come from observational study and there is no randomized controlled trial to compare patient survival between PD and HD due to patients enrollment issue.More importantly, for most health care systems, such as United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Indonesia and China, PD is less expensive than HD. It is possible, then, that a greater global utilization of PD might improve access to renal replacement therapy in less advanced economies. The investigators have conducted a prospective, randomized, parallel, open-label, multi-center, non-inferiority trial to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with PD versus conventional in-center HD in incident ESKD patients. A total of 1082 ESKD patients were randomly assigned to PD or conventional in-center HD, and 235 patients enrolled in stage 1 with complete measures of the "Burden of Kidney Disease" at both baseline and 48 weeks and 668 patients enrolled in stage 2 were included in analysis. However, this trial was designed to evaluate quality of life between PD and HD and all patients were follow-up 48 weeks. Therefore, in this observational cohort study, the investigators will perform extended follow-up for participants including in analysis . Our primary objective is to evaluate the association of dialysis modality (PD and HD) with all-cause mortality in ESKD patients. The investigators also explore the impact of PD and HD on major cardiovascular event composite (MACE), a composite outcome of MACE and all-cause death, hospitalized myocardial infarction, hospitalized stroke and hospitalized heart failure, healthy utility, dialysis cost, activity of daily living, and changes of RRF, hemoglobin, and other biochemical parameters.

Start: December 2020
Efficacy and Tolerance of RHEOpheresis in the Treatment of Peripheral Artery Disease in Hemodialysis Patients

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with limb-threatening ischemia (PAD-LTI) involves both macrocirculation and microcirculation. Macrocirculatory abnormalities are accessible to revascularization techniques (endovascular or surgical) contrary to microcirculatory abnormalities. Conservative treatments have limited efficacy in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). There is no alternative treatment for patients with PAD-LTI in hemodialysis. Rheopheresis is an apheresis technique specifically designed for the treatment of microcirculatory disorders in which anomalies of rheology are at the center of physiopathology. This double cascade plasma filtration technique reduces plasma viscosity and eliminates inflammation mediators which play an essential role in PAD. This technique has already shown its effectiveness in a randomized trial in dry Age-related macular degeneration (AMD), another pathology of microcirculation. The effectiveness of rheopheresis in PAD-LTI has only been reported in a small number of cases. This Hypothesis is that the treatment of microcirculation by rheopheresis would improve wound healing of the ischemic lesion and/or reduce major amputation and thus the prognosis of the affected limb of the patient with PAD-LTI in hemodialysis. This objective is to demonstrate the efficacy of rheopheresis, (twelve sessions), to avoid major amputation and reaches complete wound healing of ischemic lesion in the dialysis patient population with PAD-LTI. This study is prospective, Controlled, Parallel, Randomized, Single blind and Multicentric in France (12 French centers).

Start: June 2020
Comparing the Hemodiafiltration On-line and Conventional Hemodialysis in Terms of Cost-benefit

The site where the clinical trial will be conducted is at the St-Luc hospital from the CHUM. This is a prospective randomized study that will compare the two treatment modalities, HD and HDF, through economics and pharmaco-economics parameters. Patients, who had previously been randomized in the CONTRAST study, will remain in their respective group and monitoring will continue. The next patients will be randomized in the same way (1: 1) using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. HDF randomized patients will receive post-dilution standard reinjection (at least 100ml/min or 6 liter/hr). In rare cases, HDF patients can briefly have reinjection on a pre-dilution mode (if heparin need to be avoided for example) and the reinjection flow should be adjusted accordingly (200ml/min). Length and frequency of sessions will be the same in the 2 groups. Blood tests will not change and will be the same than those used as routine assessments. Metabolic control of patients will be maintained according to the guidelines. Patients will be monitored for a minimum of 3 years. A set of demographic and clinical data will be collected from patient medical records and throughout the study. Biochemical data as part of the usual blood tests of dialysis patients will be collected each month as well as will be stored and analyzed information about the annual cardiac ultrasounds. All events will be scored (hospitalizations, patterns, duration) and the list and cost of drugs will be compiled every three months. These data will be useful in the economic analysis comparing the two treatment modalities.

Start: January 2011