Comparison Of The Dialysis Effect Of High-flux Hemodialysis And Hemodiafiltration On Chronic Renal Failure Uremia Patients

As a common kind of treatment for chronic renal failure uremiapatients, blood purification technology can be used to control thepatients’ disease, and to significantly extend their lives.Objective: To achieve this goal, it is required to study theadvantages and disadvantages of high flux hemodialysis (HFHD) andhemodiafiltration (HDF) on systematically treating chronic renal failureuremia patients, especially the differences when removing the large ormiddle molecule toxins of the patients, so as to effectively adviceclinicians to choose the more appropriate therapy for uremia patients.Comparing the two different kinds of therapies, to a greater extend, itwill effectively remove the uremic toxins, especially avoid the chronicrenal failure uremia complications and development caused by the largeor middle molecule toxins, to enable patients to achieve adequatedialysis, prolong the survival time of patients, and improve the quality oftheir lives.Method:1.Studying99cases (chronic renal failure uremia patients beingtreated in Jilin Province People’s Hospital from July,2012to July,2013)as the object. The patients were randomly divided into two groups–HFHD group and HDF group. The HFHD group were treated3timesper week, and240minutes per time; the HDF group were required to receive HFHD therapy basically, and every5times, HDF therapy is toreplace HFHD therapy for once.2.Venous blood of both two groups of patients were drawn3times(30minutes before the sixth dialysis,30minutes after that and30minutes before the seventh dialysis) to mensurate blood urea, serumcreatinine, blood uric acid, blood potassium, phosphorus, parathyroidhormone, β2microglobulin, cystatin C, and to calculate urea clearanceindex, standard protein catabolic rate, time average concentration ofurea.3.EXCEL was used for data entry, and SPSS19.0. was used forstatistical analysis Count data were compared by using chi-square test,measurement data with normal distribution were compared using t test,and measurement data with non-normal distribution were comparedusing rank sum test (P<0.05is statistically significant).Results: The statistical test consists of two groups of patients withgender, age, disease, no significant difference (p>0.05). Two groups ofpatients before dialysis, no statistical significance of blood urea, serumcreatinine, blood uric acid, blood potassium, phosphorus, parathyroidhormone, β2microglobulin, cysteine proteinase inhibitor C (P>0.05); theindex after dialysis decreased obviously, there was statisticallysignificant difference (P<0.05); the post dialysis index of blood urea,creatinine, uric acid, serum potassium, serum β2microglobulin were notstatistically significant (P>0.05). The removal of phosphorus of theHFHD group was obviously higher than that of the HDF group, and itwas statistically significant (P<0.05); the removal of parathyroidhormone of the HFHD group was obviously higher than that of the HDFgroup, and it was statistically significant (P<0.05); the removal of β2 microglobulin of the HDF group was obviously higher than that of theHFHD group, and it was statistically significant (P<0.05); the clearanceof cystatin C of HFHD group was obviously higher than that of the HDFgroup, and it was statistically significant (P<0.05); and it was notsignificantly different (P<0.05) when comparing Kt/V, nPCR andTACurea of the two groups,Conclusion: Both of the two different kinds of therapies caneffectively remove uremic toxins from patients. Both of the two kinds ofdialysis can achieve urea dialysis.To remove the increasing parathyroidhormone and serum phosphorus of patients, HFHD is more effective; Toremove cysteine protease inhibitor C, HFHD more effective; to removethe increasing β2microglobulin, HDF is more effective.