The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes

Fergus J Caskey, Sunita Procter, Stephanie J MacNeill, Julia Wade, Jodi Taylor, Leila Rooshenas, Yumeng Liu, Ammar Annaw, Karen Alloway, Andrew Davenport, Albert Power, Ken Farrington, Sandip Mitra, David C Wheeler, Kristian Law, Helen Lewis-White, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Will Hollingworth, Jenny Donovan, J Athene Lane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2–5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3–5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. Methods: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases — Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary — and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). Discussion: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. Trial registration: ISRCTN10997319.
Original languageEnglish
Article number532
Pages (from-to)1-15
Number of pages15
JournalTrials
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jun 2022

Keywords

  • Adult
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Delivery of Health Care
  • Hemodiafiltration/adverse effects
  • Humans
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic/diagnosis
  • Quality of Life
  • Registries
  • Renal Dialysis/adverse effects
  • Renal Insufficiency/etiology
  • Integrated qualitative research
  • Haemodiafiltration
  • Haemodialysis
  • H4RT
  • Kidney failure
  • Randomised controlled trial

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this