- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT03301740
Ultrafiltration Profiling and Outcomes Among Individuals on Maintenance Hemodialysis
The rate of fluid removal (ultrafiltration, UF) during hemodialysis (HD) may contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among individuals receiving maintenance HD. More rapid UF rates are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Ultrafiltration profiling, the practice of varying UF rates to maximize fluid removal during periods of greatest hydration and plasma oncotic pressures, is one treatment modification that may reduce UF-related harm without necessitating reduction in interdialytic fluid intake or longer HD treatments. To date, UF profiling has not been adequately studied independent of sodium profiling.
This study investigates the comparative effect of UF profiling versus non-profiled conventional HD on select cardiovascular and patient-reported outcomes. Participants will complete two phases of UF profiling and two phases of conventional HD and will act as their own controls.
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
North Carolina
-
Carrboro, North Carolina, United States, 27510
- Carolina Dialysis - Carrboro
-
Siler City, North Carolina, United States, 27344
- Carolina Dialysis - Siler City
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- UF rate >10 mL/h/kg in >30% of treatments in a 30-day screening period (require ≥6 outpatient HD treatments in this period)
- Age 18-85 years
- Ability to converse comfortably in English or Spanish
- Receipt of in-center maintenance HD at Carolina Dialysis clinics in Carrboro or Siler City, North Carolina
- ≥90 days on HD
- Free of bloodstream infection during screening period
- Willingness to undergo all study testing
- Evidence of a signed and dated informed consent document
Exclusion Criteria:
- Systolic BP unable to be measured by arm cuff
- >1 hospitalization during screening period
- Unstable angina per treating nephrologist
- End-stage cirrhosis per treating nephrologist
- New York Heart Association class IV heart failure per treating nephrologist
- Pregnant
- More than 4 times per week HD
- Incarcerated
- Anticipated kidney transplant within 6 months per treating nephrologist
- Non-adherence to HD prescription (>2 unexplained absences during screening period)
- Sodium profiling or UF profiling in standard HD prescription
- Decisionally challenged, unable to provide informed consent
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: UF Profiling Phase First
First treatment phase begins with linear UF profiling during HD. Participants randomized to starting with the experimental UF profiling phase will receive 9 HD treatments with UF profiling (1st experimental phase). Following a 3 conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will then cross over to 9 conventional HD treatments (1st control phase). Following a 2nd 3 conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will cross over to 9 HD treatments with UF profiling (2nd experimental phase). Following a 3rd conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will cross over to 9 conventional HD treatments (2nd control phase). |
Experimental arm: Linear UF profiling (linearly decreasing UF rate with a UF rate starting at 1.33 times the rate that would be needed at a constant UF rate to achieve the desired post-weight; pre-programmed "profile 2" on a Fresenius 2008K machine, the machine used in all participating clinics).
Ultrafiltration profiling will be performed using Fresenius 2008K dialysis machines in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
Control arm: Conventional HD (routine care) is the participant's standard HD prescription without UF profiling.
|
|
Experimental: Conventional HD Phase First
First treatment phase begins with conventional HD. Participants randomized to starting with the control conventional HD phase will receive 9 conventional HD treatments (1st control phase). Following a 3 conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will then cross over to 9 HD treatments with UF profiling (1st experimental phase). Following a 2nd 3 conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will cross over to 9 conventional HD treatments (2nd control phase). Following a 3rd conventional HD treatment wash-out period, participants will cross over to 9 HD treatments with UF profiling (2nd experimental phase). |
Experimental arm: Linear UF profiling (linearly decreasing UF rate with a UF rate starting at 1.33 times the rate that would be needed at a constant UF rate to achieve the desired post-weight; pre-programmed "profile 2" on a Fresenius 2008K machine, the machine used in all participating clinics).
Ultrafiltration profiling will be performed using Fresenius 2008K dialysis machines in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
Control arm: Conventional HD (routine care) is the participant's standard HD prescription without UF profiling.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Occurrence of Intradialytic Hypotension (Intradialytic Hypotension Defined as Nadir Systolic BP <90 mmHg)
Time Frame: Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
Intradialytic blood pressure (BP) was measured with an upper extremity cuff in seated position at 15-minute intervals during each hemodialysis treatment per standard dialysis clinic protocols.
Intradialytic hypotension was defined as the presence of a nadir systolic BP <90 mmHg.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
|
Pre- to Post-hemodialysis Treatment Change in Troponin T Level in ng/mL at Weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15, Using Mixed Model Analysis
Time Frame: Weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15
|
Troponin T blood samples were collected at 4 study visits.
Specifically, at the 7th hemodialysis treatment in each respective study phase (i.e., at week 3, 7, 11, and 15 study visits).
Pre- to post-hemodialysis troponin T change was calculated as: post-dialysis troponin T - pre-dialysis troponin T (ng/mL).
A lower change value reflects less cardiac strain.
Based on the pre-specified protocol, the reported values represent change in troponin T between pre- and post-hemodialysis using mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression) analysis that considered all specified time-points (i.e., weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15).
|
Weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15
|
|
Occurrence of a ≥10% Troponin T Percentage Rise From Pre- to Post-hemodialysis Treatment
Time Frame: Weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15
|
Troponin T blood samples were collected before and after each participant's 7th hemodialysis treatment of each study phase (4 times during the study).
Troponin T percentage change was calculated as [(Post-HD troponin T - pre-HD troponin T) / pre-HD troponin T] x100.
Troponin T percentage rise was defined as a troponin T percentage change ≥10%.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 3, 7, 11, and 15
|
|
Change From Baseline in Percent Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS)
Time Frame: Weeks 3 and 7
|
Left ventricular GLS was measured with transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and at 30 minutes before HD treatment end during the 7th treatment in the first phase of each arm.
Left ventricular GLS change was calculated as peak intradialytic stress GLS - baseline GLS (%).
A lower change value reflects lesser cardiac strain.
Median differences were estimated using Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests.
|
Weeks 3 and 7
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Nadir Systolic Blood Pressure During Hemodialysis in mmHg
Time Frame: Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
Intradialytic BP was measured with an upper extremity cuff in seated position at 15-minute intervals during each hemodialysis treatment per standard dialysis clinic protocols.
Nadir systolic BP was defined as the lowest intradialytic systolic BP measurement during each hemodialysis treatment.
Lower values reflect greater cardiac strain.
Beta-coefficients were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures linear regression model).
|
Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
|
Occurrence of Failed Target Weight Achievement (Failed Target Weight Achievement Defined as a Difference in Prescribed Target Weight and Post-dialysis Weight That is >1 kg or <-1 kg)
Time Frame: Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
The treating nephrologist prescribed the target weight per routine clinical care.
Post-dialysis weight was measured after each hemodialysis treatment in the standing position, per dialysis clinic protocol.
Failed target weight achievement was defined as a difference in prescribed target weight and post-dialysis weight that was >1 kg or <-1 kg.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Every study hemodialysis treatment, up to 36 treatments per participant over 15 weeks
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Cramping During Dialysis (Clinically Important Cramping Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Cramping)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
cramping) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important cramping was defined as cramping ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Nausea or Upset Stomach During Dialysis (Clinically Important Nausea or Upset Stomach Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Nausea or Upset Stomach)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
nausea or upset stomach) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important nausea/upset stomach was defined as nausea/upset stomach ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Vomiting or Throwing up During Dialysis (Clinically Important Vomiting or Throwing up Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Vomiting or Throwing up)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
vomiting or throwing up) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important vomiting/throwing up was defined as vomiting/throwing up ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Dizziness or Lightheadedness During Dialysis (Clinically Important Dizziness or Lightheadedness Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Dizziness or Lightheadedness)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
dizziness or lightheadedness) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important dizziness/lightheadedness was defined as dizziness/lightheadedness ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Racing Heart or Heart Palpitations During Dialysis (Clinically Important Racing Heart or Heart Palpitations Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Racing Heart or Heart Palpitations)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
racing heart or heart palpitations) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important racing heart/heart palpitations was defined as racing heart/heart palpitations ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Chest Pain During Dialysis (Clinically Important Chest Pain Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Chest Pain)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
chest pain) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important chest pain was defined as chest pain ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Shortness of Breath During Dialysis (Clinically Important Shortness of Breath Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Shortness of Breath)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
shortness of breath) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important shortness of breath was defined as shortness of breath ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Thirst or Dry Mouth During Dialysis (Clinically Important Thirst or Dry Mouth Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Thirst or Dry Mouth)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
thirst or dry mouth) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important thirst/dry mouth was defined as thirst/dry mouth ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Headache During Dialysis (Clinically Important Headache Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Headache)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
headache) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important headache was defined as headache ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Itching During Dialysis (Clinically Important Itching Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Itching)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
itching) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important itching was defined as itching ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Restless Legs During Dialysis (Clinically Important Restless Legs Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Restless Legs)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
restless legs) during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important restless legs was defined as restless legs ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
|
Occurrence of Patient-reported Clinically Important Tingling or Feeling of Pins and Needles During Dialysis (Clinically Important Tingling or Feeling of Pins and Needles Defined as Moderate, Severe, or Very Severe Tingling or Feeling of Pins and Needles)
Time Frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Participants' dialysis-related symptoms (e.g.
tingling or feeling of pins and needles during the last week were assessed using an investigator-developed 12-question symptom questionnaire administered once weekly throughout the study (6 times per study arm).
Each symptom was graded using a 5-point symptom severity Likert scale (response options: none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
Clinically important tingling/feeling of pins and needles was defined as tingling/feeling of pins and needles ranked as moderate, severe or very severe.
Odds ratios were estimated using a mixed model (repeated measures logistic regression model).
|
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Jennifer Flythe, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 17-1057
- 1K23DK109401 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on End Stage Renal Disease
-
Outset MedicalCompletedAcute Kidney Injury | End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) | End Stage Renal Disease on DialysisUnited States
-
University of Illinois at ChicagoWithdrawnObesity | End-Stage Renal Disease | Renal Disease, End-Stage | Renal Failure, End-StageUnited States
-
Bioconnect Systems, IncCompletedEnd-stage Renal Disease | End-stage Kidney DiseaseUnited States
-
Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University...Not yet recruitingEnd Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis
-
Suzhou Alphamab Co., Ltd.RecruitingEnd-Stage Renal Disease Requiring HaemodialysisChina
-
Tuen Mun HospitalEnrolling by invitationDialysis Efficiency and Transporter Evaluation Computational Tool in Peritoneal Dialysis (DETECT-PD)Peritoneal Dialysis | End-Stage Kidney Disease | End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) | End Stage Renal Failure on Dialysis | Peritoneal Dialysis Patients | End Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis (Diagnosis)Hong Kong
-
Chang Gung Memorial HospitalRecruitingPhysical Fitness/Training and Inflammatory Immune Responses in Patients With End-stage Renal DiseaseEnd-stage Renal DiseaseTaiwan
-
Lawson Health Research InstituteCompletedEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseCanada
-
Vanderbilt UniversityWithdrawnEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseUnited States
Clinical Trials on UF profiling during HD
-
University of ParmaUnknownHypotension During Dialysis | Dialysis HypotensionItaly
-
University of CalgaryCompletedEnd Stage Renal Failure on Dialysis | Intradialytic HypotensionCanada
-
University of AarhusThe Danish Medical Research CouncilCompleted
-
Coventry UniversityUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS TrustRecruiting
-
Hasselt UniversityUniversitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven; University Hospital, Antwerp; AZ Sint-Jan... and other collaboratorsCompletedGestational HypertensionBelgium