Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Perspectives
Open Access

Revisiting Filtration Fraction as an Index of the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting in Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration

Parta Hatamizadeh, Ashita Tolwani and Paul Palevsky
CJASN November 2020, 15 (11) 1660-1662; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02410220
Parta Hatamizadeh
1Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Renal Transplantation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashita Tolwani
2Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Palevsky
3Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • filtration fraction
  • extracorporeal circuit clotting
  • extracorporeal circuit malfunction
  • circuit clotting
  • continuous venovenous hemofiltration
  • continuous renal replacement therapy
  • critical care medicine
  • critical care nephrology
  • acute kidney injury
  • renal replacement therapy
  • ICU nephrology
  • blood coagulation
  • ultrafiltration

Introduction

Hemofilter clotting is a major challenge in continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). Experts recommend keeping filtration fraction, the fraction of plasma water that is removed by ultrafiltration, below 20% or 30% to avoid clotting (1). Clotting risk is believed to markedly increase when the postfilter hematocrit (Hct) exceeds 0.4–0.5, and a filtration fraction of 30%–50% is presumably associated with an increase in the postfilter Hct to this range (2).

However, a key question is whether a single value of maximal filtration fraction is appropriate in all situations, independent of other parameters such as Hct and concentration of plasma proteins. Additionally, the role of prefilter as compared with postfilter administration of replacement fluids contributes to additional confusion and uncertainty regarding the interpretation of filtration fraction. Given the definition of filtration fraction (FF), when replacement fluids are administered postfilter, it is calculated as below:Embedded ImageWhere QUF-net is fluid removal rate, QRF-post is postfilter fluid replacement rate, and QB is blood flow rate.

For the calculation of filtration fraction when replacement fluid is administered prefilter, most experts propose adding the prefilter replacement fluid rate (QRF-pre) to both numerator and denominator, as in Equation 2 (3,4):Embedded ImageAccording to Equations 1 and 2, with fixed QB and QUF-net, at any fluid replacement rate, the filtration fraction is higher in the postfilter compared with the prefilter replacement setting. Therefore, when comparing pre- and postfilter replacement settings, assuming that a lower filtration fraction is associated with a lower risk of hemofilter clotting would be consistent with these calculations because studies have shown a lower risk of clotting when using the prefilter compared with the postfilter fluid replacement setting (5,6). However, according to Equation 2, in the prefilter replacement setting, by increasing the QRF-pre, the calculated filtration fraction will increase, while there is no evidence to suggest that increasing the prefilter replacement rate increases the risk of hemofilter clotting.

Therefore, using filtration fraction as an index for risk stratification of hemofilter clotting has serious limitations, particularly in the prefilter replacement setting.

The Origin of Applying a Single Universal Filtration Fraction Cutoff Point to Prevent Hemofilter Clotting

The application of filtration fraction for risk stratification of hemofilter clotting and the assignment of a single cutoff point as the maximum allowable filtration fraction in all clinical scenarios has been endorsed by many authors without providing strong evidence apart from referring to prior publications, which themselves have not provided any compelling evidence (1,4). It appears that these anecdotes originate from some publications from the early 1980s, where their observed filtration fraction in continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration (CAVH) was mainly between 20% and 30% (7,8). However, those publications report experience with CAVH, and not CVVH, which is the modality that is currently used. Unlike CVVH, CAVH does not allow for control of the filtration rate because it is a function of the existing arteriovenous hydrostatic pressure gradient, oncotic pressures, and membrane and circuit specifications. Furthermore, these publications simply report the observed filtration fraction achieved in the CAVH setting, the importance of which was about attainment of convective clearance rather than hemofilter clotting. In fact, they have not reported any correlation between filtration fraction and hemofilter clotting. Therefore, these studies cannot be extrapolated to CVVH and provide no information regarding the relationship between filtration fraction and hemofilter clotting; hence, they should not have been the basis for defining a single filtration fraction value as the maximum allowable filtration fraction in CAVH.

A Better Alternative than Filtration Fraction for Determining the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting

In 1992, Jenkins et al. (9) showed in an experimental study that at a Hct close to 0.45, “operational instability” of the hemofiltration system and impending circuit clotting occur.

Because hemoconcentration, not filtration fraction per se, defines the risk of hemofilter clot formation, calculating end-of-hemofilter hemoconcentration is likely to be more useful than the filtration fraction. Using Hct as a surrogate for hemoconcentration, we can calculate the filtration fraction that can lead to a certain end-of-filter Hct, depending on the patient’s Hct.

According to basic mathematical concepts, we know:Embedded ImageWhere Hctpre is prefilter Hct, Qpre is prefilter flow (which is QB), Hctpost is postfilter Hct, and Qpost is postfilter flow.

In postfilter replacement, Qpost can be calculated by subtracting the ultrafiltration flow from the prefilter flow which, according to Equation 1, will result in the following equation:Embedded ImageBy replacing Qpost in Equation 3, according to Equation 4, and solving it for FF, the following formula ensues:Embedded ImageBy plugging in the patient’s Hct for Hctpre and the maximum end-filter Hct threshold (Hctmax) for Hctpost, one can calculate the maximum allowable filtration fraction (FFmax) to avoid reaching a Hct level at which the risk of filter clotting is thought to be unacceptably high (Equation 6).Embedded ImageEquation 6 reveals the significant effect of the patient’s Hct on FFmax. For example, assuming Hctmax=0.4, the FFmax for a Hct of 0.35 is 19%, whereas for a Hct of 0.25, it is 50%.

For practical purposes, calculating the maximum allowable ultrafiltration rate (QUF-total, which is QUF-net+QRF-post) is useful. Using Equation 3, replacing Qpost with QB−QUF-total and solving the equation for QUF-total result in Equation 7:Embedded ImageThe maximum allowable ultrafiltration rate can then be calculated using Equation 8:Embedded ImageTherefore, the higher the Hct and the lower the QB, the lower the QUF-total should be set to avoid hemofilter clotting.

Equations 4–8 are applicable only in the postfilter replacement setting. For the prefilter replacement setting, in the absence of any net ultrafiltration (when QUF-total=QRF-pre), the same volume that has been given as the prefilter replacement fluid will be removed from it within the hemofilter, so the end-of-hemofilter Hct returns to the predilution Hct, i.e., the patient’s Hct. Therefore, with a fixed fluid removal rate, any increase or decrease in QRF-pre increases or decreases the convective clearance, respectively; however, it does not change end-of-hemofilter Hct (Figure 1). Therefore, it should not affect the likelihood of filter clotting and should not be factored in calculations of FFmax or QUF-max.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Postfilter hematocrit rises exponentially by increasing postfilter replacement rate but is not affected by alterations of prefilter replacement rate. In postfilter replacement setting, with incremental increase in replacement fluid rate, the postfilter hematocrit increases exponentially; whereas in prefilter replacement setting, the postfilter hematocrit remains constant irrespective of prefilter replacement rate, provided that all other parameters remain constant. The graph shows changes in postfilter hematocrit in pre- and postfilter replacement settings in a patient with hematocrit of 0.25, blood flow rate of 200 ml/min, and no fluid removal. In practice, postfilter hematocrits >0.5 may not be achievable in most circumstances because blood will clot and the filter will stop working when the hematocrit reaches such a high level. The x axis represents replacement fluid rate (ml/min) and the y axis shows the postfilter hematocrit. Hct, hematocrit.

Thus, for the calculation of FFmax and QUF-max in prefilter replacement setting, the same formulas as those of the postfilter replacement setting (Equations 6 and 8, respectively) may be used with the understanding that, in the prefilter replacement setting, filtration fraction represents the filtered fraction of plasma (ignoring the prefilter fluid replacement rate) and QUF-max refers to QUF-net-max (maximum fluid removal rate).

Conclusion

Although end-of-filter Hct, as an index of hemoconcentration, is more relevant than filtration fraction in determination of the risk of hemofilter clotting, it still overlooks other contributing factors such as the circuit shape and design and the coagulability state of the patient.

Nevertheless, reliance on a single arbitrary maximum allowable filtration fraction, as an index for risk stratification of hemofilter clotting, lacks accuracy and validity. End-of-hemofilter Hct, which is a contributing factor to hemofilter clotting, is a more meaningful index. We propose using the above-mentioned formulas to adjust QUF to maintain the calculated end-of-hemofilter Hct below a certain number which, based on currently available data (9,10), appears to be approximately 0.4.

Although conceptually sound, these equations need to be validated in clinical studies.

Disclosures

P. Hatamizadeh has a patent titled renal replacement therapy machine. P. Palevsky reports receiving personal fees from Baxter, grants from Dascena, and grants from BioPorto, outside the submitted work. The remaining author has nothing to disclose.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

The content of this article does not reflect the views or opinions of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) or CJASN. Responsibility for the information and views expressed herein lies entirely with the author(s).

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Tolwani A
    : Continuous renal-replacement therapy for acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 367: 2505–2514, 2012 pmid:23268665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Pedrini LA
    : On-line hemodiafiltration: Technique and efficiency. J Nephrol 16[Suppl 7]: S57–S63, 2003 pmid:14733302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. MacEwen C,
    2. Watkinson P,
    3. Winearls C
    : Circuit life versus bleeding risk: The impact of achieved activated partial thromboplastin time versus achieved filtration fraction. Ther Apher Dial 19: 259–266, 2015 pmid:25511624
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Neri M,
    2. Villa G,
    3. Garzotto F,
    4. Bagshaw S,
    5. Bellomo R,
    6. Cerda J,
    7. Ferrari F,
    8. Guggia S,
    9. Joannidis M,
    10. Kellum J,
    11. Kim JC,
    12. Mehta RL,
    13. Ricci Z,
    14. Trevisani A,
    15. Marafon S,
    16. Clark WR,
    17. Vincent JL,
    18. Ronco C; Nomenclature Standardization Initiative (NSI) alliance
    : Nomenclature for renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: Basic principles. Crit Care 20: 318, 2016 pmid:27719682
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Uchino S,
    2. Fealy N,
    3. Baldwin I,
    4. Morimatsu H,
    5. Bellomo R
    : Pre-dilution vs. post-dilution during continuous veno-venous hemofiltration: Impact on filter life and azotemic control. Nephron Clin Pract 94: c94–c98, 2003 pmid:12972719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. van der Voort PH,
    2. Gerritsen RT,
    3. Kuiper MA,
    4. Egbers PH,
    5. Kingma WP,
    6. Boerma EC
    : Filter run time in CVVH: Pre- versus post-dilution and nadroparin versus regional heparin-protamine anticoagulation. Blood Purif 23: 175–180, 2005 pmid:15711037
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kramer P,
    2. Kaufhold G,
    3. Gröne HJ,
    4. Wigger W,
    5. Rieger J,
    6. Matthaei D,
    7. Stokke T,
    8. Burchardi H,
    9. Scheler F
    : Management of anuric intensive-care patients with arteriovenous hemofiltration. Int J Artif Organs 3: 225–230, 1980 pmid:7409920
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Lauer A,
    2. Saccaggi A,
    3. Ronco C,
    4. Belledonne M,
    5. Glabman S,
    6. Bosch JP
    : Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration in the critically ill patient. Clinical use and operational characteristics. Ann Intern Med 99: 455–460, 1983 pmid:6625376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Jenkins RD,
    2. James EF,
    3. Chen B,
    4. Golper TA
    : Operational instability in extracorporeal filtration of blood. Blood Purif 10: 292–308, 1992
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Cinar Y,
    2. Demir G,
    3. Paç M,
    4. Cinar AB
    : Effect of hematocrit on blood pressure via hyperviscosity. Am J Hypertens 12: 739–743, 1999 pmid:10411372
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 15 (11)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 15, Issue 11
November 06, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Revisiting Filtration Fraction as an Index of the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting in Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Revisiting Filtration Fraction as an Index of the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting in Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration
Parta Hatamizadeh, Ashita Tolwani, Paul Palevsky
CJASN Nov 2020, 15 (11) 1660-1662; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02410220

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Revisiting Filtration Fraction as an Index of the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting in Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration
Parta Hatamizadeh, Ashita Tolwani, Paul Palevsky
CJASN Nov 2020, 15 (11) 1660-1662; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02410220
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • The Origin of Applying a Single Universal Filtration Fraction Cutoff Point to Prevent Hemofilter Clotting
    • A Better Alternative than Filtration Fraction for Determining the Risk of Hemofilter Clotting
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • A Body Size–Adjusted Maximum Ultrafiltration Rate Warning Level Is Not Equitable for Larger Patients
  • Food Insecurity and Kidney Disease
  • What Is the Best Maintenance Therapy for ANCA Vasculitis?
Show more Perspectives

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • filtration fraction
  • extracorporeal circuit clotting
  • extracorporeal circuit malfunction
  • circuit clotting
  • continuous venovenous hemofiltration
  • continuous renal replacement therapy
  • critical care medicine
  • critical care nephrology
  • acute kidney injury
  • renal replacement therapy
  • ICU nephrology
  • blood coagulation
  • ultrafiltration

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire