Back
For best output, select "Paper Size" as "A4" and "Margin" as "0" or "None".
To save or print to PDF, please select Print Destination > Save as PDF, enable Background Graphics under "More Settings", then click "Save".
During the congress, E-Posters will be accessible to all participants on the congress website 24/7, as well as in the E-poster stations in the congress center.
Preparing your E-Poster
Please review the E-Poster format requirements carefully when preparing your E-Poster. Should your E-Poster not meet the mentioned requirements, it may not be displayed as described above.
E-Poster Submission Deadline
Please prepare and upload your E-Poster no later than March 14, 2026 11.59PM CET. After this date, you will no longer be able to prepare and upload your E-poster and it will not be displayed and accessible on the congress website.
Please follow the instructions below to input your abstract title.
Abstract titles should be brief and reflect the content of the abstract.
Beta 2 microglobulin (β2m) is a representative marker of medium size molecule clearance in hemodialysis. However, there is no standardized metric to assess its removal efficiency across advanced modalities such as high volume hemodiafiltration (hv-HDF) and expanded hemodialysis (HDx).
We conducted an observational, single-center, retrospective study comparing the patients treated at tertiary care hemodialysis unit. Only sessions lasting 240 minutes in patients without residual kidney function were included. A total of 347 sessions were analyzed (234 for hv-HDF and 113 HDx) using linear mixed-effects models with patients as random effects. We calculated β2m reduction ratio (β2mRR), single pool Kt/Vβ2m (spKt/Vβ2m), and equivalent continous dialytic clearance of β2m (eCDCβ2m) to compare removal performance between modalities. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors associated with a β2mRR >80%. The main outcome was spKt/Vβ2m. Determinants of depuration efficiency were further explored using generalized additive models and iso-efficiency surfaces analyses.
Hv-HDF demonstrated superior β2m removal compared with HDx: 21% higher by spKt/Vβ2M, 11% by β2MRR ,and 11.2% by eCDCβ2M. In both therapies, dry weight was inversely associated with spKt/Vβ2M (β = –0.019, p<0.001), while ultrafiltration (β = +0.16, p=0.016) and convective volume in HDF (β = +0.00002, p=0.011) were positively associated (Figure 1A-B). In adjusted models, HDF consistently achieved higher β2m clearance targets than HDx. Iso-efficiency analyses confirmed that HDx reached a plateau of β2m clearance with minimal lsensitivity to increases in blood flow (Qb) rate or dialyzer flow rate, whereas HDF showed proportional gains with increasing substitution volume, particularly at higher Qb (Figure 1C-D).
Table 1: Comparison between HDF y HDx
Total
HDF1
HDx
p value
Sessions (n)
347
234
113
Vascular access
Fistula/Catheter
179/168
117/117
62/51
0.395
Minutes of hemodialysis sessions
240
NA
Blood flow rate in ml/min
Mean [Q1-Q3]
359
[356-369]
362
[356-378.5]
[357-366.75]
0.240
Convective volumen in liters per session
Median [Q1-Q3]
27
[25-28]
Ultrafiltrate per session in liters
Mean (SD)
2.06
(0.86)
2.08
(0.80)
2.04
(0.97)
0.388
spKt/V Urea
1.95
[1.65-2.32]
2.02
[1.72-2.39]
1.85
[1.46-2.08]
<0.001
β2M pre-session (mg/L)
34.1 [29.23-42.8]
33.9 [28.67-44.5]
34.66 [30.16-40.91]
0.114
β2M post-session (mg/L)
7.52
[5.98-9.71]
6.78
[5.43-7.9]
10.37 [8.27-11.7]
eCDCβ2M (ml/min)Median [Q1-Q3]
11.08 [9.75-13.19]
11.78 [10.15-14.03]
10.59 [9.03-11.72]
spKt/Vβ2M
3.04
[2.77-3.43]
3.29
[2.98-3.55]
2.72
[2.40-2.89]
RRβ2M (%)
82.75 [78.67-87.45]
86
[81.41-88.79]
77.51 [71.87-80.49]
Hv-HDF provides significantly superior β2m clearance compared with HDx, as measured by β2mRR, spKt/Vβ2m, eCDCβ2m. Convective volume emerges as the key determinant of β2m removal efficiency, while HDx offers stable yet limited clearance capacity.
