PLoS ONE (Jan 2024)

Frequent hemodialysis versus standard hemodialysis for people with kidney failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

  • Patrizia Natale,
  • Suetonia C Green,
  • Matthias Rose,
  • Michiel L Bots,
  • Peter J Blankestijn,
  • Robin W M Vernooij,
  • Karin Gerittsen,
  • Mark Woodward,
  • Carinna Hockham,
  • Krister Cromm,
  • Claudia Barth,
  • Andrew Davenport,
  • Jörgen Hegbrant,
  • Pantelis Sarafidis,
  • Partha Das,
  • Christoph Wanner,
  • Allan R Nissenson,
  • Benedicte Sautenet,
  • Marietta Török,
  • Giovanni Strippoli

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309773
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 9
p. e0309773

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundFrequent hemodialysis provided more than three times per week may lower mortality and improve health-related quality of life. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive. We evaluated the benefits and harms of frequent hemodialysis in people with kidney failure compared with standard hemodialysis.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults on hemodialysis with highly sensitive searching in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar on 3 January 2024. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We adjudicated evidence certainty using GRADE.ResultsFrom 11,142 unique citations, only seven studies involving 518 participants proved eligible. The effects of frequent hemodialysis on physical and mental health were imprecise due to few data. Frequent hemodialysis probably had uncertain effect on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.91, low certainty evidence). Data were not reported for death from cardiovascular causes, major cardiovascular events, fatigue or vascular access.ConclusionThe evidentiary basis for frequent hemodialysis is incomplete due to clinical trials with few or no events reported for mortality and cardiovascular outcome measures and few participants in which patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and symptoms were reported.