Improving the efficiency of short-term single-needle hemodialysis

Abstract

It is widely believed that single-needle (SN) hemodialysis is inferior to conventional double-needle (DN) hemodialysis. The purpose of this study was to compare two SN dialysis regimens using different blood flow rates with conventional DN hemodialysis. The primary outcome measure was ionic dialysance. We studied eight patients (two women, six men) undergoing chronic intermittent DN bicarbonate hemodialysis three times per week on a Cimino-Brescia fistula for at least three months. The study had a prospective four-period design and lasted four weeks. During weeks 1 and 3, the participants had standard DN hemodialysis sessions, with Wallace needles at a blood flow rate of 250-300 mL/min. During week 2, they had single-needle dialysis sessions with a short 15-gauge stainless-steel needle, an effective blood flow rate of 180 mL/min (360 mL/min for each of the two pumps), and venous pressure below 200 mmHg. During week 4, they had SN dialysis sessions with a short 15-gauge stainless-steel needle, an effective blood flow rate of 250 mL/min (500 mL/min for each of the two pumps), and a venous pressure below 200 mmHg. Ionic dialysance recorded 45 minutes after the beginning of the dialysis session and 30 minutes before the end of the session were used for statistical analysis. The effective blood flow target of 250 mL/min was achieved in six of the eight patients. Ionic dialysance 45 minutes after the beginning of the session differed among the four periods (p 0.001, Friedman test). Ionic dialysance was better during each DN dialysis period than during the 180 mL/min SN period (p 0.01, Dunn's multiple comparison tests), but there was no difference with the 250 mL/min SN period. Ionic dialysance 30 minutes before the end of the dialysis session differed among the four periods (p 0.001, Friedman test). Ionic dialysance was far better during each DN period than during the 180 mL/min SN period (p 0.001, Dunn's multiple comparison test) and slightly better than during the 250 mL/min SN period (p 0.05, Dunn's multiple comparison test). The single-pool Kt/V ratio differed among the four periods (p 0.0001, Friedman test). The Kt/V ratios were far better during each DN period than during the 180 mL/min SN period (p 0.001, Dunn's multiple comparison test) and slightly better than during the 250 mL/min SN period (p 0.01, Dunn's multiple comparison test). The Kt/v provided by the dialysis monitor gave identical results to single pool Kt/v. We conclude that single-needle dialysis with an effective blood flow rate of 180 mL/min delivers an inadequate dialysis dose, which may be harmful. In contrast, an effective blood flow rate of 250 mL/min appears acceptable for brief periods of single-needle dialysis lasting one or two weeks. Otherwise, an increase in the length of the dialysis session and/or the use of a larger membrane surface area and even higher blood flow is required to obtain the same quality of dialysis as with conventional double-needle hemodialysis. Careful monitoring of the dialysis dose delivered is mandatory during single-needle dialysis.