Increasing dialysate flow rates (Qd) from 500 to 800 ml/min has been recommended to increase dialysis efficiency. A few publications show that increasing Qd no longer led to an increase in mass transfer area coefficient (KoA) or Kt/V measurement. Our objectives were: 1) Studying the effect in Kt of using a Qd of 400, 500, 700 ml/min and autoflow (AF) with different modern dialysers. 2) Comparing the effect on Kt of water consumption vs. dialysis time to obtain an individual objective of Kt (Ktobj) adjusted to body surface. This is a prospective single-centre study with crossover design. Thirty-one patients were studied and six sessions with each Qd were performed. HD parameters were acquired directly from the monitor display: effective blood flow rate (Qbe), Qd, effective dialysis time (Te) and measured by conductivity monitoring, final Kt. We studied a total of 637 sessions: 178 with 500 ml/min, 173 with 700 ml/min, 160 with AF and 126 with 400 ml/min. Kt rose a 4% comparing 400 with 500 ml/min, and 3% comparing 500 with 700 ml/min. Ktobj was reached in 82.4, 88.2, 88.2 and 94.1% of patients with 400, AF, 500 and 700 ml/min, respectively. We did not find statistical differences between dialysers. The difference between programmed time and Te was 8′ when Qd was 400 and 500 ml/min and 8.8′ with Qd = 700 ml/min. Calculating an average time loss of eight minutes/session, we can say that a patient loses 24′ weekly, 312′ monthly and 62.4 hours yearly. Identical Kt could be obtained with Qd of 400 and 500 ml/min, increasing dialysis time 9.1′ and saving 20% of dialysate. Our data suggest that increasing Qd over 400 ml/min for these dialysers offers a limited benefit. Increasing time is a better alternative with demonstrated benefits to the patient and also less water consumption.

Over the last hundred years, life expectancy in developed countries has increased because of healthier living habits and the treatment of chronic pathologies causing premature aging. Aging is an inexorable, time-dependent, multifactorial process characterized by a series of progressive and irreversible physiological changes associated with loss of functional, psychological, and social capabilities. Numerous factors, such as oxidative stress, inflammation, and cellular senescence, and an irreversible geriatric syndrome known as frailty, contribute to human body deterioration in aging. The speed of aging may differ between individuals depending on the presence or absence of multiple factors (genetic and/or environment) and the subsequent misbalance of homeostasis, together with the increase of frailty, which also plays a key role in developing chronic diseases. In addition, pathological circumstances have been reported to precipitate or accelerate the aging process. This review investigated the mechanisms involved in the developing pathologies, particularly chronic kidney disease, associated with aging.

High-circulating level of parathyroid hormone (PTH) is associated with elevated mortality in dialysis patients. The Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy guideline suggests a lower PTH target than other international guidelines; thus, PTH control may differ in Japan compared with other regions, and be associated with mortality. We analyzed data from hemodialysis patients with ≥3 measurements of PTH during the first 9 months after enrollment in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) phases 4–5 (2009–2015). PTH control was assessed by the mean, slope, and mean squared error (MSE) of all PTH measurements over the 9-month run-in period. Distribution of each PTH control was assessed by regions (Europe/Australia/New Zealand [Eur/ANZ], Japan and North America) and dialysis vintage. Mortality rates were compared across PTH control categories using Cox regression models. Mean PTH was lower in Japan than in other regions across dialysis vintage categories. In patients with dialysis vintage < 90 days, PTH level was more likely to decline > 5% per month in Japan (48% of patients) versus Eur/ANZ (35%) and North America (35%). In patients with dialysis vintage > 1 year, Japanese patients maintained steady PTH, while patients in Eur/ANZ and North America were more likely to experience a PTH increase. Mean PTH was associated with mortality in the overall samples (highest mortality rate for PTH > 600 pg/mL, hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 1.52 vs PTH 200–399 pg/mL), and the association was obvious in the prevalent patients (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 1.65). PTH slope and MSE did not show significant association with mortality in the overall sample as well as in subjects stratified both by region and dialysis vintage. PTH control in hemodialysis patients, as measured by keeping a stable PTH level over 9 months, was observed in Japan contrasted with other regions. High PTH mean, but not increased PTH slope and MSE, was associated with mortality especially in prevalent patients.

A recently published nomenclature by a “Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes” (KDIGO) Consensus Conference suggested that the word “kidney” should be used in medical writings instead of “renal” or “nephro” when referring to kidney disease and kidney health. Whereas the decade-old move to use “kidney” more frequently should be supported when communicating with the public-at-large, such as the World Kidney Day, or in English speaking countries in communications with patients, care-partners, and non-medical persons, our point of view is that “renal” or “nephro" should not be removed from scientific and technical writings. Instead, the terms can coexist and be used in their relevant contexts. Cardiologists use “heart” and “cardio” as appropriate such as “heart failure” and “cardiac care units” and have not replaced “cardiovascular” with “heartvessel”, for instance. Likewise, in nephrology, we consider that “chronic kidney disease” and “continuous renal replacement therapy” should coexist. We suggest that in scientific writings and technical communications, the words “renal” and “nephro" and their derivatives are more appropriate and should be freely used without any pressure by medical journals to compel patients, care-partners, healthcare providers, researchers and other stakeholders to change their selected words and terminologies. We call to embrace the terms “kidney”, “renal” and “nephro” as they are used in different contexts and ask that scientific and medical journals not impose terminology restrictions for kidney disease and kidney health. The choice should be at the discretion of the authors, in the different contexts including in scientific journals.