SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.75 número6Pushing the Boundaries of Hemodialysis: Innovations in Membranes and SorbentsAdvances in Hemodialysis in the Last Decade in Latin America índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Revista de investigación clínica

versión On-line ISSN 2564-8896versión impresa ISSN 0034-8376

Rev. invest. clín. vol.75 no.6 Ciudad de México nov./dic. 2023  Epub 12-Mar-2024

https://doi.org/10.24875/ric.23000213 

IN-DEPTH REVIEW

Are Medium Cut-off Membranes the Future, or the Promising Reality for Chronic Hemodialysis Patients?

Noemí Del Toro-Cisneros1 

Erick Y. Zuñiga-González1 

Adrián E. Caballero-Islas1 

José A. Geraldo-Murillo1 

Mauricio Arvizu-Hernández1  2 

Olynka Vega-Vega1  * 

1Department of Nephrology and Mineral Metabolism, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City;

2School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, NL, Mexico


ABSTRACT

The development of hemodialysis (HD) membranes has substantially advanced in the last decade. This has resulted in the manufacturing of medium cut-off membranes (MCO) whose internal architecture is based on greater pore size and a smaller diameter, thus promoting the clearance of particles of greater size as well as retrofiltration. Multiple studies have proven their efficacy in the clearance of uremic mid-sized molecules such as β2-microglobulin, free light chains, and some interleukins; this clearance is far superior with MCO membranes when compared with high-flux HD, and similar to that obtained with online hemodiafiltration. This review summarizes the results of the most relevant clinical studies of this membrane in terms of uremic toxin clearance, as well as the features of some clinical outcomes such as quality of life and hospitalizations.

Keywords: Medium cut-off dialyzers; Online-hemodiafiltration; Chronic hemodialysis; Internal filtration–back filtration mechanism; Middle molecules

INTRODUCTION

Medium cut-off (MCO) membranes are a novel generation of dialyzers manufactured with polyarylethersulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone, and their mean pore radius is 5 nm, a value between high-flux (HF) and high cut-off (HCO) membranes1. Their pore size and distribution are similar to the glomerular basement membrane, with an effective radius between 3 and 3.5 nm, a cut-off that is close to the molecular weight of albumin and a high retention onset, so in summary, they allow better removal of medium-sized molecules without increasing albumin losses2,3. Hemodialysis (HD) treatment with MCO membranes has also been referred to as expanded HD (HDx®) given its broader range of solute removal4,5. This modality seems attractive given its enhanced permeability, selective solute retention, and superior internal retrofiltration (back filtration), resulting from combined diffusive and convective clearance within the same dialyzer, without replacement fluid, as with online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Main characteristics of medium cut-off membranes. 

Herein, we describe their effects on the clearance of uremic toxins (UT), the damping of inflammation and cardiovascular risk, as well as on improved body composition, quality of life (QOL), and the decrease in maintenance HD costs. Finally, a summary of their use in patients with COVID-19 is presented.

THE EFFECT OF MCO MEMBRANES ON UREMIC TOXIN REMOVAL

Removal of β2-microglobulin (β2M)

(β2M, 11.8 kDa) is a UT, the prototype of medium molecular weight molecules; it is a marker of membrane efficiency in the removal of this class of solutes6,7. From the initial clinical study in which the performance of different MCO filters was evaluated, increased β2M removal was demonstrated. The reduction ratio (RR) with MCO surpassed HF (78.5 vs. 73.5%, p < 0.001), but did not significantly differ from OL-HDF (78.5 vs. 80.6%)3. However, Maduell et al. did not detect RR differences between the MCO and 8 HF dialyzers used in OL-HDF, thus reinforcing the non-inferiority of MCO filters in comparison with OL-HDF in β2M removal8. The established benefits of MCO filters over HF are constant, even in studies with a greater number of treatment options, such as that by Belmouaz et al. Patients were treated for 3 months with MCO, followed by 3 months with HF, and vice versa; MCO was found to be superior in terms of the β2M RR when compared with HF (73% vs. 68%, p = 0.04)9. The largest randomized clinical trial that has evaluated the efficacy and safety of MCO dialyzers included 172 randomized patients that were either treated with MCO or HF for 24 weeks. The group of patients treated with MCO had greater β2M RR after 4 weeks in comparison with those on HF (75.7% vs. 64.9% p < 0.001). This pattern persisted until week 2410.

A prospective study compared the MCO filters with 6 HF dialyzers, including 3 super HF dialyzers (SHF), in HF and OL-HDF. No significant differences were found in the β2M RR between the HF, SHF, OL-HDF, and the MCO dialyzers. MCO was only when compared with an HF dialyzer (p < 0.001)11. Finally, in the first randomized, controlled, crossover trial that compared chronic therapy with HF versus MCO versus OL-HDF for 4 weeks, the β2M RR was statistically greater in OL-HDF and MCO when compared with HF (62% vs. 73% vs. 27% respectively, p < 0.0001)12. In conclusion, based on the currently available evidence, we can claim that MCO filters are superior to HF while yielding the same efficacy as OL-HDF in the removal of medium molecular weight UT such as β2M.

Removal of free light chains

Increased serum levels of free light chains have been shown to be directly associated with greater mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease13. Therefore, free kappa (κFLC, 22.5 kDa) and lambda (λFLC, 45 kDa) light chains have been used as the prototype of medium-middle and large-middle UT, respectively6,7. Kirsch et al. reported that the RR of λFLC was greater with MCO, 42.5% in comparison with HF 12.9% (p < 0.001) and HDF 37.9% (p < 0.001); the RR of κFLC were MCO 72.9% versus HF 36.4% (p < 0.001), and 71.6% with HDF (p = 0.3), thus demonstrating better UT removal with MCO3.

In a clinical trial with 172 patients randomized to treatment to either MCO or HF for 24 weeks, the RR of λFLC was the primary efficacy outcome. MCO proved to be superior in terms of the RR of these UT at 24 weeks, 33% versus 17% in HF (p < 0.001), and UT removal improved within the first 4 weeks (p < 0.001)10. MCO performance in the clearance of these UT was also evaluated in comparison with OL-HDF, HF, and SHF HD (SHF) in a prospective trial with 8 patients. Belmouaz et al. found a greater κFLC RR with MCO, OL-HDF, and SHF dialyzers in comparison with HF dialyzers. There were no significant differences between MCO and OL-HDF. As to λFLC, OL-HDF was found to be superior to all other dialyzers (p < 0.01). This study emphasizes the non-inferiority of MCO versus OL-HDF in the elimination of UT in the medium molecular weight range11.

Evidence is limited as to the clearance of other middle molecular weight molecules. YKL-40 is a 38 kDa glycoprotein expressed on macrophages of early atherosclerotic plaque, and that has been independently associated with cardiovascular mortality in patients with renal failure14. In a clinical trial that evaluated the clinical efficiency of MCO3, the RR of YKL-40 was greater with MCO 60.5% versus 19.2% in HF (p < 0.001), and 44.8% in HDF, demonstrating MCO superiority3. Likewise, in a study by Hadad-Arrascue et al., MCO yielded better results when compared with OL-HDF, in terms of YKL-40 removal, but interestingly, this did not occur with toxins of lower molecular weight such as β2M, κFLC, and FGF-23 (32 kDa)14.

We can, therefore, ascertain that in the removal of UT with a medium molecular weight between 11.8 kDa and 45 kDa, MCO filters are superior to HF, and just as effective as treatment with OL-HDF.

Removal of protein-bound UT

Protein-bound UT (PBUT) are a group of low molecular weight substances (<500 Da) that are mostly a byproduct of intestinal metabolism; their affinity to plasma proteins is variable, which prevents their removal with conventional dialysis therapies. Indoxyl sulfate and p-cresol sulfate have been the most closely linked to increased cardiovascular risk, and their clearance is the best marker when analyzing the removal of this group of toxins6,15.

Few studies have evaluated the ability of MCO to remove PBUT. The REMOVAL-HD study was a non-randomized, multicenter trial that included 89 patients treated with MCO for 24 weeks, with two 4-week washout periods with HF, before and after the intervention. The primary aim was to evaluate changes in serum albumin during the treatment period, and among the secondary outcomes, the authors analyzed changes in pre-dialysis levels of different UT. An exploratory analysis of REMOVAL-HD studied the effects of MCO on the removal of PBUT such as indoxyl sulfate and p-cresol. The pre-dialysis serum levels of total indoxyl sulfate did not differ between groups at week 12 or 24. Likewise, total baseline p-cresol did not differ at weeks 12 or 24. On comparison of the concentrations of free indoxyl sulfate and p-cresol, no significant differences were detected either after treatment with MCO16. In another prospective, crossover study, 22 patients on chronic OL-HDF were randomized to treatment with HF, MCO, and OL-HDF for 3 consecutive weeks, and serum concentrations were measured pre-and post-dialysis. The RR of indoxyl sulfate and p-cresol showed no significant differences between the various modalities15. Finally, the results of a randomized, controlled, crossover study conducted in a single center in Mexico agree with previously described findings in the literature. After 4 weeks of treatment-wash out with each evaluated modality (HF, OL-HDF, and MCO), no significant differences were detected in the removal rates of indoxyl sulfate or p-cresol with MCO when compared with OL-HDF and HF12.

Based on current evidence, one can assert that the elimination of PBUT is completely dependent on residual kidney function and that despite all efforts to further increase the removal of larger-sized toxins, treatment with MCO has been unable to efficiently clear this type of solutes. Table 1 summarizes the main clinical trials that have explored the removal of middle molecular weight UT with MCO in comparison with other dialysis modalities.

Table 1. Effect of the different dialysis modalities on uremic toxins removal 

Characteristic Kirsch
et al. 20163
Belmouaz
et al. 20209
Weiner
et al. 202010
Belmouaz
et al. 202211
Maduell
et al. 202252
Vega
et al. 202312
Kim
et al. 202215
Study desing Prospective, open-label, controlled, randomized, crossover pilot study Cross-over prospective study Open label, multicenter RCT Single center, prospective study Prospective single-cohort study Single center, cross-over, RCT Prospective, randomized, cross-over study
Modalities MCO versus HF versus OL-HDF HF versus MCO HF versus MCO HF versus SHF versus HDx versus OL-HDF OL-HDF versus MCO versus HF HF versus MCO versus OL-HDF HF versus MCO versus OL-HDF
Time intervention Single session 12 weeks each modality 24 weeks Single session Single session 4 weeks each modality 3 weeks each modality
Patients 39 40 172 8 23 22 22
Age (mean, ± SD) 55 ± 13 75 ± 9 59 ± 13 68 68 ± 12 36 62 ± 11
Residual diuresis 500 mL/day Not reported NA
95% < 200 mL
Not reported NA
100% < 300 mL
NA
100% < 50 mL
NA
100% < 200 mL
NA
100% < 100 mL
β2M RR HF 73%*
MCO 78%
OL-HDF 80%+
*p < 0.001
+NS
HF 68%
MCO 73%
p = 0.04
MCO 73%
HF 65%
p < 0.001
HF 65%
SHF 73%
MCO 79%
OL-HDF 79%
NS
HF 74%
MCO 77%
OL-HDF 83%*
*OL-HDF versus all
p < 0.001
HF 27%
MCO 73%
OL-HDF 62%
p < 0.0001
κFree light chains HF 36%
MCO 72%
OL-HDF 71%+
+
p = 0.3
*p < 0.001
HF 50%
MCO 63%
p < 0.001
HF 46%
SHF 56%
MCO 66%
OL-HDF 75%*
* OL-HDF versus HF
p < 0.001
HF 66%
MCO 77%+
OL-HDF 84%*
*OL-HDF versus all
p < 0.001
+MCO
versus HF
p < 0.001
λFree light chains HF 12%*
MCO 42%
OL-HDF 37%+
+
*p < 0.001
HD 17%
MCO 33%
p < 0.001
HF 17%
SHF 33%
MCO 46%
OL-HDF 60%*
*OL-HDF versus HF, SHF, MCO
p < 0.01
HF 24%
MCO 48%+
OL-HDF 59%*
*OL-HDF versus all
p < 0.001+
MCO versus HF
p < 0.001
pIndoxyl sulfate HF -16%
MCO -90%
OL-HDF -50%
p = 0.3
HF 33%
MCO 36%
OL-HDF 40%
NS
p-cresol HF -3%
MCO -3%
OL-HDF -5%
p = 0.6
HF 27%
MCO 29%
OL-HDF 34%
NS

*Significant: p < 0.05.

+There was only a difference in the experimental group (MCO) versus control (HF) in TNF-α mRNA and IL-6 mRNA. ‘RR corrected for hemoconcentration (Bergstrom and Wehle formula).

HD: hemodialysis; RR: reduction ratio (pre-HD concentration-post-HD concentration/pre-HD concentration ×100); HF: high flow hemodialysis; MCO: medium cut-off membranes; OL-HDF: online hemodiafiltration; NA: not available; SHF: super high flow.

THE EFFECT OF MEDIUM CUT-OFF MEMBRANES ON INFLAMMATION, MINERAL METABOLISM, AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES

Effect of medium cut-off membranes on inflammation

Patients with CKD are in a persistent inflammatory state characterized by elevated concentrations of inflammatory markers that may contribute to an increased cardiovascular risk17-19. Since MCO were designed, the generated hypothesis suggested that a larger pore size could potentially increase the elimination of cytokines, and thus contribute to the regulation of the imbalance between inflammation and antioxidant capacity20-22. Several clinical trials have focused on proving the reduction of various inflammatory cytokines with different dialysis modalities, as shown in table 2. Zickler et al.22 found that the use of MCO was significantly associated with a decrease in the expression of tumor necrosis factor alfa (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) messenger RNA in comparison with HF, but there were no differences in the plasma concentration of these and other cytokines. The largest clinical trial included 86 patients with MCO versus. HF, and revealed that the RR was greater with MCO for TNF-α but not IL-6; the latter increased by 50% in comparison with the baseline value in the group with HF10. Lim et al.23, compared MCO versus. HF for 12 weeks, and at the end of the study, they detected an RR for TNF-α with MCO of 41% versus 37% with HF, which was associated with an improvement in iron metabolism and resistance to erythropoietin-stimulating factors. However, in this and all studies conducted to date, the long-term impact of decreasing the levels of inflammatory cytokines remains unknown9,24. Subsequently, MCO versus OL-HDF were compared, demonstrating that the ability to eliminate inflammatory cytokines was similar with both modalities. As expected, on comparison of MCO versus OL-HDF versus HF, the latter yielded a lower RR for cytokines14,12.

Table 2. Effect of the different dialysis modalities on the inflammatory state 

Characteristic Zickler et al. 201722 Weiner et al. 202010 Lim et al. 202032 Belmouaz et al. 20209 Cozzolino et al. 202124 Hadad et al. 202214 Vega et al. 202312
Age (mean ± SD) 59 ± 17 59 ± 13 63 ± 14 76 ± 10 71 ± 13 61 ± 12 41 ± 17
Residual diuresis > 500 mL/day 18 (38) NA 10 (20), > 100 mL/day 2 (5), > 300 mL/day NA 10 (23) Anuria
Time intervention 4-week and 8-week extension 24 weeks 12 weeks 24 weeks 24 weeks 12 weeks 12 weeks
Study desing 23 patients MCO versus 25 patients HF 86 patients MCO versus 86 patients HF 24 patients MCO versus 25 patients HF 20 patients MCO and cross-over HF versus 20 patients HF and cross-over MCO 10 patients MCO and cross-over versus 11 patients HF and cross-over MCO 21 patients MCO versus 21 patients OL-HDF 27 patients cross-over for HF versus MCO versus OL-HDF
TNF-α, RR 15% MCO 5% HF 49% MCO* 35% HF 41% MCO* 37% HF 37% MCO 26% HF NA NA 37% MCO 16% HF 2% OL-HDF
IL-6, RR 33% MCO 44% HF 15% MCO ↑50% HF NA 9% MCO 11% HF 39% MCO ↑32% HF 14% MCO 17% OL-HDF 3% MCO ↑14% HF ↑4% OL-HDF
C-reactive protein, RR 39% MCO 28% HF 11% MCO 10% HF ↑18% MCO ↑22% HF NA NA 7% MCO 9% OL-HDF 1% MCO 2% HF 1% OL-HDF

*Significant: p < 0.05.

There was only a difference in the experimental group (MCO) versus control (HF) in TNF-α mRNA and IL-6 mRNA. RR corrected for hemoconcentration (Bergstrom and Wehle formula).

HD: hemodialysis; RR: reduction ratio (pre-HD concentration - post-HD concentration/pre-HD concentration ×100); HF: high flow hemodialysis; MCO: medium cut-off membranes; OL-HDF: online hemodiafiltration; NA: not available.

Effect of medium cut-off membranes on mineral metabolism and cardiovascular outcomes

Like inflammation, vascular calcification is a common complication that contributes to the increase in cardiovascular risk in patients with CKD, in addition to the classical risk factors25. The increase in the concentration of organic and inorganic molecules circulating in plasma and the homeostatic abnormalities in mineral metabolism further advances vascular injury and worsens outcomes in this population16. Different toxins and mineral metabolism markers, such as indoxyl sulfate, sulfated p-cresol, fibroblast growth factor-23, fetuin-A, and calciprotein particles, among others, correlate with this vascular calcification1,16. These are low- and medium-molecular weight toxins, but some are tightly protein-bound which hinders their elimination with conventional dialysis techniques16,26.

MCO membranes have been studied in this context, with promising results1. Ciceri et al. conducted a crossover study that included 20 patients that were managed for 3 months with HF and 3 months with MCO, to analyze various pathogenic mechanisms of vascular calcification; they established that the serum of patients treated with MOC had a lesser degree of procalcification potential26, as previously described in 27. The REMOVAL-HD trial detected a greater RR for FGF-23 with MCO at 12 weeks in comparison with baseline values, and this reduction was sustained even by week 2416.

Information is scarce on the clinical impact of MCO. Lee et al.28 conducted a clinical trial comparing cardiovascular parameters in patients with MCO versus OL-HDF. The studied outcomes were changes in the brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity, echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular mass), coronary artery calcium scores (CAC), and cardiovascular mortality over 1 year; there were no between-group differences. The CAC scores remained stable in the OL-HDF group, while the MCO group showed a growing tendency in the score (p = 0.012). This is the first study designed to investigate the clinical impact of MCO on cardiovascular clinical outcomes, but further evidence is necessary to reach solid conclusions on the usefulness of this new dialyzer in the modification of these outcomes.

EFFECT OF MEDIUM CUT-OFF MEMBRANES ON BODY COMPOSITION

As kidney disease progresses, worsening of renal function and the chronic uremic inflammatory status lead to nutritional and metabolic abnormalities that negatively impact the energy and protein balance, thus resulting in the loss of body proteins and energy reserves; this has been attributed to all the above-mentioned factors (uremic toxin accumulation, inflammation, the dialysis treatment 29. Although protein and energy depletion are considered multifactorial, dialysis techniques with the ability to eliminate toxins of greater molecular weight could maybe positively impact body composition and nutritional state. In this regard, Belmouaz et al. conducted a post hoc study of a previous clinical trial that had included eight patients with HF and eight with MCO; all patients completed at least 12 months with the assigned dialyzer, and all had a baseline and at 1-year bioimpedance. Lean body mass and lean tissue index improved significantly with MCO (both, p < 0.05); these parameters are good biomarkers of the protein energy-wasting syndrome in this population30.

EFFECT OF MEDIUM CUT-OFF MEMBRANES ON QUALITY OF LIFE

The fact that CKD decreases patients' QOL is well-established. Many studies have associated some symptoms with the poor removal of medium-middle and medium-large molecules. This generated the hypothesis that the increased removal of these UT with MCO could lead to a better QOL in patients. One of the most relevant studies in this area is the COREXH study, which included 992 patients and compared the effect of HF versus MCO for 12 months. QOL was evaluated with the KDQoL-SF36 questionnaire and the authors detected symptoms such as restless leg syndrome. Part of the results included improvement in three of the five domains of the KDQoL-SF36 questionnaire (symptoms, effects of kidney disease, and disease burden); they also observed a decrease in the severity of symptoms associated with HD. Restless leg syndrome manifestations decreased from a 22% baseline value to 10% after 12 months with MCO31.

The relationship between medium molecule concentrations and the changes in symptoms and QoL have been evaluated in some studies. A study by Lim et al. randomized 49 patients to MCO versus OL-HDF. Baseline QoL was evaluated at baseline, and again 12 months later with the KDQoL-SF36 questionnaire; they also collected information on symptoms such as pruritus with another questionnaire and a visual analog scale. They also analyzed changes in the previously mentioned parameters and their relation with the RR of different medium molecules. At 12 weeks, the scores in patients with MCO improved in the physical functioning, physical role, morning pruritus distribution, and frequency of scratching during sleep domains. All these changes correlated with better RR of κFLC and λFLC, suggesting that part of the improvement could be attributed to better clearance of this type of UT32 Similar results have been found in other studies with other instruments that measure QOL33.

Finally, in another study that compared MCO versus OL-HDF, questionnaires were applied every 3 months for a year to evaluate the time to recovery after HD, and although no changes were detected in the levels of hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, or albumin, the time to recovery decreased in the MCO group, whereby the percentage of patients that took over 360 min to recover, decreased34. Despite this data, some studies have reported contradicting results. In two different studies that compared MCO versus OL-HDF, no differences were detected in QoL10,35.

We can hence conclude that the increased removal of UT with MCO could apparently contribute to an improvement in QoL, a decrease in recovery time after HD, and fewer treatment-related symptoms. However, studies encompassing larger patient groups and longer follow-ups are necessary to identify which patients will benefit most from this approach.

EFFECT OF MEDIUM CUT-OFF MEMBRANES ON HEALTH ECONOMICS

Hospitalization rates and costs

The hospitalization and mortality rates in patients on dialysis are higher in comparison with the general population25; some reports have stated that these patients are hospitalized an average of 2 times/year36. The effect of MCO on the number of hospitalizations has been examined in some populations (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of hospitalization rates reported for patients in MCO membranes 

Study, country Study design Population (n), time to outcome No. Hospitalization events Hospitalization rate (patient/year) Hospital days patient-year
Bunch et al.53 (COREXH) Colombia Prospective cohort n = 638 1 year 673 0.79 (IC 95% 0.73-0.85) 6.91 (IC 95% 6.74-7.09)
Molano et al.37 Colombia Retrospective cohort MCO n = 546 versus HF n = 534 2 years MCO 727
HF 854
MCO
0.93 (IC 95% 0.82-1.03)
HF
1.13 (IC 95% 0.68-0.99)
MCO
6.45 (IC 95% 6.29-6.62)
HF
10.18 (IC 95% 9.96-10.4)
Sanabria et al.38 Colombia Observational Cohort before-after design n = 81 1 year MCO 61
HF 57
MCO
0.71 (IC 95% 0.55-0.92)
HF
0.77 (IC 95% 0.6-0.98)
MCO
4.41 (IC 95% 3.97–4.90)
HF
5.94 (IC 95% 5.41–6.50)
Blackowicz et al.39 USA Randomized controlled open-label MCO n = 86 versus HF n = 85 4.5 months MCO 18
HF 31
MCO
0.56 (IC 95% 0.3-0.81)
HF
1.02 (IC 95% 0.57-1.24)
MCO
4.6 (IC 95% 3.9-5.5)
HF
4.1 (IC 95% 3.3-5.2)
Cho et al.44 Korea Ambispective cohort MCO n = 76 versus HF n = 38 3 years MCO 22
HF 48
NA NA

MCO: medium cut-off membranes; HF: high-flux hemodialysis.

In one of the most important studies on the subject, Molano et al. reported a lower hospitalization rate (−20%) in patients with MCO versus HF (0.93 vs. 1.13 patients/year, p = 0.04), and a decrease in the rate of non-fatal cardiovascular events, although there was no difference in mortality at 20 months37. Later, in a "before/after" observational cohort study in Colombia that included 81 patients whose treatment was changed from HF to MCO, and a follow-up of 1 year, the authors reported a decrease in the hospitalization rate from 0.77 to 0.71 (NS) patients/year and a decrease in hospitalization days from 5.94 to 4.41 (days/patient/year) (p = 0.0001)38. Likewise, Blackowicz et al. evaluated the effect of MCO versus HF on the hospitalization rates and treatment costs; they reported a decrease of 46% in the rate of hospital admissions (0.56 vs. 1.02 patients/year, p = 0.042), and an average hospital stay of 4.6 versus 4.1 days (NS), reflected in a decrease in hospital costs of US$ 6091.0039.

Although the cost of an MCO dialyzer may be up to twice that of a conventional filter40, when the decrease in hospitalization rates and hospital stay in the MCO group are taken into account, dialysis-associated total costs do decrease38,39.

Erythropoietin-stimulating agents

UT and chronic inflammation compromise iron metabolism in dialysis patients and interfere with the response to ESA41. As previously stated, MCO increases the clearance of medium molecular weight molecules and inflammatory factors, which could improve the response to erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA). A randomized study that compared HF versus MCO showed a decrease in the median ESA dose (−49.8 vs. 8.1 U/Kg/wk., p = 0.023), and an increase in serum iron and transferrin saturation, and hence, a significant decrease in the ESA resistance index24. Furthermore, another observational study demonstrated a decrease in the ESA dose 6 months after initiating MCO, and the lower ESA requirement persisted when compared with conventional HD42.

However, not all studies reached favorable conclusions on this subject. After a 3-month crossover study of HF and MCO, Belmouaz et al. found no differences in the iron profiles, nor in the ESA dosage or resistance9 Likewise, Cho et al. did not detect a decrease in the median ESA dose nor in iron profiles at 12 months43, or at 3 years44. We can conclude that to date, it appears that the use of MCO decreases the inflammatory profile and tends to foster lower ESA doses, but evidence remains limited in terms of the effectiveness of MCO on ESA use. Table 4 summarizes the studies published on the subject. Figure 2 summarizes the beneficial effects that have been demonstrated with the use of MCO membranes.

Table 4. Change in ESA dose and erythropoietin resistance index for patients with MCO membranes 

Study, country Study design Population (n), time to outcome Median dose ESA (Baseline) Change in ESA dose ∆
[U/kg/wk]
ERI
Lim et al.23 Korea Randomized controlled open-label MCO n = 24
HF n = 25
12 weeks
MCO: 133.9 ± 91.5a
HF: 126.9 ± 125.8a
MCO: −49.8 ± 81.6b
HF: 8.1 ± 90.2b
∆ − 5.2 ± 7.8 versus 0.1 ± 9.1c
Yeter et al.42 Turkey Non-randomized, controlled MCO n = 16
HF n = 16
LF n = 15
6 months
Baseline (U × 103) per session
MCO 4 (2.6-4)d
HF 5.4 (3-10)d
LF 7 (3.3-10.3)d
6th month: (U × 103)
MCO 3.6 (2.9–4.6)d
HF 6 (4.6–8.6)d
LF 5.4 (1.4-8)d
NA
Belmouaz9 France Randomized, controlled cross-over 40 patients
3 months
NA After treatment (UI × 103)
MCO: 3.12 (2-5.3)d
HF 3.44
MCO: 12 (7-18)e
HF: 15 (8-22)e
(NS, p = 0.14)

aWeight-adjusted ESA (U/kg/wk) ± SD.

bChange in median dose ESA (∆ U/kg/wk) ± SD.

cChange in median ERI after intervention.

dMedian ESA dose per HD session [U×103] (IQR).

eERI after follow-up period.

MCO: medium cut-off membranes; HF: high-flux hemodialysis; LF: low-flux hemodialysis; ERI: erythropoietin resistance index (U/kg/wk/g/dL); ESA: erythropoietin-stimulating agents.

Figure 2. Summary of beneficial effects obtained with the clinical use of medium cut-off membranes. 

Environmental impact

The environmental impact of dialytic modalities is high, particularly HD, which is the most used treatment for CKD, consumes a considerable quantity of water and energy, and produces a large amount of waste45. The amount of water used depends mainly on its treatment and the modality used. With HF, less is consumed (0.5 m3/session) compared to HDF, which can even go up to 35 l depending on the type of replacement used46. The use of MCO membranes provides benefits similar to those obtained with HDF and with lower water requirements given their filtration-retrofiltration properties1,2. However, it is urgent to establish public policies for the management of all waste caused by the health-care system in an effort to be more sustainable.

EFFECT OF MEDIUM CUT-OFF MEMBRANES ON COVID-19

COVID-19 triggers an uncontrolled inflammatory process that leads to organic injury, and its accentuated magnitude is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes47. In this context and given the correlation between inflammatory cytokines and COVID-19 severity, the use of extracorporeal treatments with MCO or HCO membranes was posited as a possible immune modulator, capable of removing inflammatory cytokines in patients on chronic HD or with AKI and requiring replacement therapy48.

Two prospective, randomized trials have evaluated the impact of MCO on COVID-19 and chronic HD. Yalın et al. failed to demonstrate a benefit from the use of MCO membranes, although the MCO group had greater COVID-19 severity and warranted a more prolonged hospitalization (21.9 vs. 11.5, p = 0.022); there were no differences in death rates nor admissions to the intensive care unit49. Esposito et al. evaluated the inflammatory cytokine profile and detected no differences in the removal of circulating cytokines or clinical outcomes at 14 days50. Finally, Salazar et al. compared OL-HDF versus MCO in patients with Covid-19, revealing increased TNFα clearance in comparison with OL-HDF, as well as a decrease in deaths in the MCO group (18.2% vs. 57.1%, NS)51.

Despite the evidence on the removal of pro-inflammatory cytokines in COVID-19, MCO has not proven effective in terms of clinical outcomes, and is therefore not recommended as immune modulation therapy that would sufficiently limit COVID-19 severity; further evidence is necessary to establish the role of MCO in the context of acute disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the reviewed and summarized evidence presented in this article, we believe that at least in the medium-term, the use of MCO membranes increases the removal of medium-sized UT, that in turn, is reflected in clinical and paraclinical benefits such as improved QOL, less hospitalizations in the 1st year, and decreased ESA dosing, and improved outcomes when compared with HF. Questions that remain to be answered in the future include whether these results will persist in the long-term and whether they will be reflected in decreased morbidity and mortality in patients on chronic HD, the crux in the management of these patients.

REFERENCES

1. Zhang Z, Yang T, Li Y, Li J, Yang Q, Wang L, et al. Effects of expanded hemodialysis with medium cut-off membranes on maintenance hemodialysis patients: a review. Membranes (Basel). 2022;12:253. [ Links ]

2. Boschetti-de-Fierro A, Voigt M, Storr M, Krause B. MCO membranes: enhanced selectivity in high-flux class. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:18448. [ Links ]

3. Kirsch AH, Lyko R, Nilsson LG, Beck W, Amdahl M, Lechner P, et al. Performance of hemodialysis with novel medium cut-off dialyzers. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:165-72. [ Links ]

4. Ronco C, La Manna G. Expanded hemodialysis: a new therapy for a new class of membranes. Contrib Nephrol. 2017;190:124-33. [ Links ]

5. Ronco C. The rise of expanded hemodialysis. Blood Purif. 2017; 44:I-VIII. [ Links ]

6. Rosner MH, Reis T, Husain-Syed F, Vanholder R, Hutchison C, Stenvinkel P, et al. Classification of uremic toxins and their role in kidney failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;16:1918-28. [ Links ]

7. Wolley M, Jardine M, Hutchison CA. Exploring the clinical relevance of providing increased removal of large middle molecules. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13:805-14. [ Links ]

8. Maduell F, Rodas L, Broseta JJ, Gomez M, Xipell M, Guillen E, et al. Medium cut-off dialyzer versus eight hemodiafiltration dialyzers: comparison using a global removal score. Blood Purif. 2019;48:167-74. [ Links ]

9. Belmouaz M, Bauwens M, Hauet T, Bossard V, Jamet P, Joly F, 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;35:328-35. [ Links ]

10. Weiner DE, Falzon L, Skoufos L, Bernardo A, Beck W, Xiao M, et al. Efficacy and safety of expanded hemodialysis with the theranova 400 dialyzer: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;15:1310-9. [ Links ]

11. Belmouaz M, Goussard G, Joly F, Sibille A, Martin C, Betous T, et al. Comparison of high-flux, super high-flux, medium cut-off hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration on the removal of uremic toxins. Blood Purif. 2023;52:309-18. [ Links ]

12. Vega-Vega O, Caballero-Islas AE, Del Toro-Cisneros N, Hernandez-Ordoñez SÓ, Arvizu-Hernández M, Martínez-Rueda A, et al. Improved β2-microglobulin and phosphorous removal with expanded hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis: a cross-over randomized clinical trial. Blood Purif. 2023;52:712-20. [ Links ]

13. Fraser SD, Fenton A, Harris S, Shardlow A, Liabeuf S, Massy ZA, 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;92:1671-81. [ Links ]

14. Hadad-Arrascue F, Nilsson LG, Rivera AS, Bernardo AA, Romero JB. Expanded hemodialysis as effective alternative to on-line hemodiafiltration: a randomized mid-term clinical trial. Ther Apher Dial. 2022;26:37-44. [ Links ]

15. Kim YG, Lee SH, Jung SW, Jung GT, Lim HJ, Kim KP, et al. The medium cut-off membrane does not lower protein-bound uremic toxins. Toxins. 2022;14:779. [ Links ]

16. Tiong MK, Krishnasamy R, Smith ER, Hutchison CA, Ryan EG, Pascoe EM, 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;25:322-32. [ Links ]

17. Himmelfarb J. Uremic toxicity, oxidative stress, and hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy. Semin Dial. 2009;22:636-43. [ Links ]

18. Gupta J, Mitra N, Kanetsky PA, Devaney J, Wing MR, Reilly M, et al. Association between albuminuria, kidney function, and inflammatory biomarker profile in CKD in CRIC. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1938-46. [ Links ]

19. Modaresi A, Nafar M, Sahraei Z. Oxidative stress in chronic kidney disease. Iran J Kidney Dis. 2015;9:165-79. [ Links ]

20. Hulko M, Speidel R, Gauss J, Storr M, Krause B. In vitro benchmark of cytokine removal by dialyzers with various permeability profiles. Int J Artif Organs. 2017;40:615-21. [ Links ]

21. Catar R, Moll G, Kamhieh-Milz J, Luecht C, Chen L, Zhao H, 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. [ Links ]

22. Zickler D, Schindler R, Willy K, Martus P, Pawlak M, Storr M, et al. Medium cut-off (MCO) membranes reduce inflammation in chronic dialysis patients-a randomized controlled clinical trial. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0169024. [ Links ]

23. Lim JH, Jeon Y, Yook JM, Choi SY, Jung HY, Choi JY, et al. Medium cut-off dialyzer improves erythropoiesis stimulating agent resistance in a hepcidin-independent manner in maintenance hemodialysis patients: results from a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2020;10:16062. [ Links ]

24. 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. 2019;14:382-9. [ Links ]

25. Ding N, Lv Y, Su H, Wang Z, Kong X, Zhen J, et al. Vascular calcification in CKD: new insights into its mechanisms. J Cell Physiol. 2023;238:1160-82. [ Links ]

26. Ciceri P, Tettamanti G, Galassi A, Magagnoli L, Fabresse N, Alvarez JC, et al. Pro-calcifying analysis of uraemic serum from patients treated with medium cut-off membrane in a prospective, cross-over study. Clin Kidney J. 2020;14:1798-807. [ Links ]

27. Willy K, Hulko M, Storr M, Speidel R, Gauss J, Schindler R, et al. In vitro dialysis of cytokine-rich plasma with high and medium cut-off membranes reduces its procalcific activity. Artif Organs. 2017;41:803-9. [ Links ]

28. Lee Y, Jang MJ, Jeon J, Lee JE, Huh W, Choi BS, et al. Cardiovascular risk comparison between expanded hemodialysis using theranova and online hemodiafiltration (CARTOON): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10807. [ Links ]

29. Cheng TC, Huang SH, Kao CL, Hsu PC. Muscle wasting in chronic kidney disease: mechanism and clinical implications-a narrative review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:6047. [ Links ]

30. Belmouaz M, Bauwens M, Desport E, Jamet P, Bridoux F. Effect of expanded hemodialysis on body composition and nutritional status. Blood Purif. 2021;50:270-2. [ Links ]

31. Alarcon JC, Bunch A, Ardila F, Zuñiga E, Vesga JI, Rivera A, et al. Impact of medium cut-off dialyzers on patient-reported outcomes: COREXH registry. Blood Purif. 2021;50:110-8. [ Links ]

32. Lim JH, Park Y, Yook JM, Choi SY, Jung HY, Choi JY, 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. [ Links ]

33. Penny JD, Jarosz P, Salerno FR, Lemoine S, McIntyre CW. Impact of expanded hemodialysis using medium cut-off dialyzer on quality of life: application of dynamic patient-reported outcome measurement tool. Kidney Med. 2021;3:992-1002.e1. [ Links ]

34. Bolton S, Gair R, Nilsson LG, Matthews M, Stewart L, McCullagh N. Clinical assessment of dialysis recovery time and symptom burden: impact of switching hemodialysis therapy mode. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2021;12:315-21. [ Links ]

35. Krishnasamy R, Hawley CM, Jardine MJ, Roberts MA, Cho Y, Wong M, 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;49:468-78. [ Links ]

36. Yu X. The evolving patterns of uremia: unmet clinical needs in dialysis. Contrib Nephrol. 2017;191:1-7. [ Links ]

37. Molano AP, Hutchison CA, Sanchez R, Rivera AS, Buitrago G, Dazzarola MP, et al. Medium cut-off versus high-flux hemodialysis membranes and clinical outcomes: a cohort study using inverse probability treatment weighting. Kidney Med. 2022;4: 100431. [ Links ]

38. Sanabria RM, Hutchison CA, Vesga JI, Ariza JG, Sanchez R, Suarez AM. Expanded hemodialysis and its effects on hospitalizations and medication usage: a cohort study. Nephron. 2021;145:179-87. [ Links ]

39. 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;26:449-55. [ Links ]

40. Lévesque R, Marcelli D, Cardinal H, Caron ML, Grooteman MP, Bots ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of high-efficiency hemodiafiltration versus low-flux hemodialysis based on the Canadian arm of the CONTRAST study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:647-59. [ Links ]

41. Smrzova J, Balla J, Bárány P. Inflammation and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents--what do we know and what needs to be clarified? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20:viii2-7. [ Links ]

42. Yeter HH, Korucu B, Akcay OF, Derici K, Derici U, Arinsoy T. Effects of medium cut-off dialysis membranes on inflammation and oxidative stress in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020;52:1779-89. [ Links ]

43. Cho NJ, Park S, Islam MI, Song HY, Lee EY, Gil HW. Long-term effect of medium cut-off dialyzer on middle uremic toxins and cell-free hemoglobin. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0220448. [ Links ]

44. Cho NJ, Jeong SH, Lee KY, Yu JY, Park S, Lee EY, et al. Clinical safety of expanded hemodialysis compared with hemodialysis using high-flux dialyzer during a three-year cohort. J Clin Med. 2022;11:2261. [ Links ]

45. Bello AK, Okpechi IG, Osman MA, Cho Y, Htay H, Jha V, et al. Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022; 18:378-95. [ Links ]

46. Ben Hmida M, Mechichi T, Piccoli GB, Ksibi M. Water implications in dialysis therapy, threats and opportunities to reduce water consumption: a call for the planet. Kidney Int. 2023;104:46-52. [ Links ]

47. Del Valle DM, Kim-Schulze S, Huang HH, Beckmann ND, Nirenberg S, Wang B, et al. An inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival. Nat Med. 2020;26:1636-43. [ Links ]

48. Ronco C, Reis T. Kidney involvement in COVID-19 and rationale for extracorporeal therapies. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16:308-10. [ Links ]

49. Yalın SF, Altıparmak MR, Dincer MT, Yadigar S, Murt A, Parmaksiz E, et al. Medium cut-off dialysis membranes: can they have impact on outcome of COVID-19 hemodialysis patients? Blood Purif. 2021;50:921-4. [ Links ]

50. Esposito P, Cipriani L, Verzola D, Grignano MA, De Amici M, Testa G, et al. Effects of different dialysis strategies on inflammatory cytokine profile in maintenance hemodialysis patients with COVID-19: a randomized trial. J Clin Med. 2021;10:1383. [ Links ]

51. Salazar ML, Portolés J, de Valdenebro Recio M, Garcia SR, Carratalá MD, Bernabeu-Andreu FA, et al. Effect of expanded hemodialysis with Theranova® in patients with COVID-19. Blood Purif. 2022;51:857-65. [ Links ]

52. Maduell F, Broseta JJ, Rodríguez-Espinosa D, Del Risco J, Rodas LM, Arias-Guillén M, et al. Comparison of four medium cut-off dialyzers. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15:2292-9. [ Links ]

53. Bunch A, Sanchez R, Nilsson LG, Bernardo AA, Vesga JI, Ardila F, et al. Medium cut-off dialyzers in a large population of hemodialysis patients in Colombia: COREXH registry. Ther Apher Dial. 2021;25:33-43. [ Links ]

Received: September 17, 2023; Accepted: September 17, 2023

*Corresponding author: Olynka Vega-Vega. E-mail: olynkavega@hotmail.com

Creative Commons License Revista de Investigación Clínica. Published by Permanyer. This is an open ccess article under the CC BY-NC-ND license