There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Background/Aims: A dialyzer (APS-EX) with a higher hollow fiber density ratio was manufactured using
the highest performance polysulfone hollow fiber from Asahi-Kasei Medical.
Methods: We compared the performance of this device in comparison with hemodialysis (HD; APS-S)
and hemodiafiltration (HDF) conditions (APS-S, 10 l post-HDF) to evaluate its merit
as an internal filtration-enhanced dialyzer.
Results: With low molecular weight proteins, APS-EX had a reduction ratio of 74.3% for β<sub>2</sub>-microglobulin
(β<sub>2</sub>-MG), and 31.0% for α<sub>1</sub>-MG. APS-EX had a significant higher
removal amount of α<sub>1</sub>-MG compared to APS-S (HDF). Significant differences
were seen in albumin loss, 4.0 g for APS-EX, 3.0 g for APS-S (HDF), and 0.9 g for
APS-S (HD). Using HD mode, APS-EX demonstrated a performance which was more than equivalent
to approximately 10 l post-HDF.
Conclusions: The results suggested the possibility that HD equivalent to HDF can be performed
safely with the ultrapure dialysate when using APS-EX with internal filtration.
On-line haemodiafiltration (HDF) is a technique which combines diffusion with elevated convection and uses pyrogen-free dialysate as a replacement fluid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference between conventional HDF (1-3 l/h) and on-line HDF (6-12 l/h). The study included 37 patients, 25 males and 12 females. The mean age was 56.5 +/- 13 years and duration of dialysis was 62.7 +/- 49 months. Three patients dropped out for transplantation, three patients died and three failed to complete the study period. Initially all patients were on conventional HDF with high-flux membranes over the preceding 34 +/- 32 months. Treatment was performed with blood flow (QB) 402 +/- 41 ml/min, dialysis time (Td) 187 min, dialysate flow (QD) 654 +/- 126 ml/min and replacement fluid (Qi) 4.0 +/- 2 l/session. Patients were changed to on-line HDF with the same filtre and dialysis time, QD 679 +/- 38 ml/min (NS), QB 434 +/- 68 ml/min (P < 0.05) and post-dilutional replacement fluid 22.5 +/- 4.3 l/session (P < 0.001). We compared conventional HDF with on-line HDF over a period of 1 year. Dialysis adequacy was monitored according to standard clinical and biochemical criteria. Kinetic analysis of urea and beta2-micro-globulin (beta2m) was performed monthly. Tolerance was excellent and no pyrogenic reactions were observed. Pre-dialysis sodium increased 2 mEq/l during on-line HDF. Plasma potassium, pre- and post-dialysis bicarbonate, uric acid, phosphate, calcium, iPTH, albumin, total proteins, cholesterol and triglycerides remained stable. The mean plasma beta2m reduction ratio increased from 56.1 +/- 8.7% in conventional HDF to 71.1 +/- 9.1% in on-line HDF (P < 0.001). The pre-dialysis plasma beta2m decreased from 27.4 +/- 8.1 to 24.2 +/- 6.5 mg/l (P < 0.01). Mean Kt/V (Daugirdas 2nd generation) was 1.35 +/- 0.21 in conventional HDF compared with 1.56 +/- 0.29 in on-line HDF (P < 0.01), Kt/Vr (Kt/V taking into consideration post-dialysis urea rebound) 1.12 +/- 0.17 vs 1.26 +/- 0.20 (P < 0.01), BUN time average concentration (TAC) 44.4 +/- 9 vs 40.6 +/- 10 mg/dl (P < 0.05) and protein catabolic rate (PCR) 1.13 +/- 0.22 vs 1.13 +/- 0.24 g/kg (NS). There was a significant increase in haemoglobin (10.66 +/- 1.1 vs 11.4 +/- 1.5) and haematocrit (32.2 +/- 2.9 vs 34.0 +/- 4.4%), P < 0.05, during the on-line HDF period, which allowed a decrease in the erythropoietin doses (3861 +/- 2446 vs 3232 +/- 2492 UI/week), (P < 0.05). Better blood pressure control (MAP 103.8 +/- 15 vs 97.8 +/- 11 mmHg, P < 0.01) and a lower percentage of patients requiring antihypertensive drugs were also observed. The change from conventional HDF to on-line HDF results in increased convective removal and fluid replacement (18 l/session). During on-line HDF treatment, dialysis dose was increased for both small and large molecules with a decrease in uraemic toxicity level (TAC). On-line HDF provided a better correction of anaemia with lower dosages of erythropoietin. Finally, blood pressure was easily controlled.
Effectiveness of various therapeutic modalities was analyzed among 1,196 patients entered in the registry of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy who were on hemopurification therapy as of the end of 1998 and developed dialysis-related amyloidosis during 1999. In the investigation, the effectiveness of various hemopurification modalities on the dialysis-related amyloidosis was ranked as exacerbation, unchanged, or alleviation, so as to analyze the possible relationship between the hemopurification modality and its effectiveness. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression approach, and the results were shown as "the risk of a worse therapeutic ranking" among the hemopurification modalities. The smaller "the risk of a worse therapeutic effect" was, the more effective the treatment modality. When the risk of a worse therapeutic effect for the hemodialysis patients treated by a regular membrane was put at 1.0, the risk for hemodialysis patients using high-flux membrane was 0.489, the off-line hemodiafiltration risk was 0.117, the on-line hemodiafiltration risk was 0.013, and the risk of push/pull hemodiafiltration was 0.017. For hemodialysis with a beta(2)-microglobulin adsorption column, a low risk of 0.054 was found. The results indicated that hemodiafiltration therapy and simultaneous hemodialysis with beta(2)-microglobulin adsorption therapy were more effective treatment for dialysis-related amyloidosis.
A statistical survey of 3932 nationwide hemodialysis (hereafter, dialysis) facilities was carried out at the end of 2004, and 3882 facilities (98.73%) responded. The population undergoing dialysis at the end of 2004 was 248 166, an increase of 10 456 patients (4.4%) from that at the end of 2003. The number of dialysis patients per million people was 1943.5. The crude death rate of dialysis patients from the end of 2003 to the end of 2004 was 9.4%. The mean age of patients who underwent dialysis in 2004 was 65.8 years, and that of the total dialysis population was 63.3 years. The percentage distribution of patients who underwent dialysis according to a newly underlying disease showed that 41.3% of patients had diabetic nephropathy and 28.1% had chronic glomerulonephritis. The frequency of calcium carbonate use for dialysis patients was 75.1% and that of sevelamer hydrochloride use was 26.2%. The frequency of sevelamer hydrochloride use does not necessarily have a strong correlation with the dose of calcium carbonate. Patients who received high doses of sevelamer hydrochloride tended to have a low concentration of arterial blood HCO(3-). Approximately 15% of dialysis patients used an intravenous vitamin D preparation, generally maxacalcitol. The longer the patients had been on dialysis, the higher the frequency of use of an intravenous vitamin D preparation. When the concentration of serum intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) was more than 200 pg/mL, the frequency of use of an orally administered vitamin D preparation decreased; but that of intravenous vitamin D preparation increased. The percentage of dialysis patients who received percutaneous ethanol injection therapy (PEIT) was 1.4%. The percentage was more than 50% in the patients who had been on dialysis for more than 10 years. The percentage of patients who received PEIT again was 35.0%. The percentage of patients who had been on hemodialysis for more than 10 years and received PEIT again was more than 50%.
aDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita,
bToma Naika, Okinawa,
cShin-Koga Hospital, Kurume,
dChuo-Jin Clinic, Kumamoto,
eKumamoto Chuo Hospital, Kumamoto,
fTakamiya Iin, Kumamoto,
gMatsuyama Clinic, Oita,
hUeyama Hospital, Kagoshima,
iTomishiro Chuo Hospital, Okinawa, Japan
Article
Publisher ID:
133430
Other ID: Blood Purif 2008;26:347–353
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into
other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that
drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations
and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes
in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy
and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug
for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions.
This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently
employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely
those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the
editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication
is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised
or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim
responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods,
instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.