Literature DB >> 10737165

Improved outcome for haemodialysis patients treated with high-flux membranes.

H F Woods1, M Nandakumar.   

Abstract

Improved survival for haemodialysis patients has been reported for synthetic, high-flux biocompatible membranes. The reported data fail to answer the question whether improved survival is related to an effect of enhanced biocompatibility or to increased clearance of larger molecular species of putative uraemic toxins. A retrospective analysis of 715 patients treated by continuous haemodialysis for up to 5 years was undertaken. Low-flux polysulfone dialysis was used exclusively for 252 patients and 463 patients were exposed for at least 3 months to high-flux polysulfone dialysis. Patients treated with high-flux dialysis had a lower mortality (21 vs 36 per 1000 years) and significantly lower standardized mortality ratio. For non-diabetic patients the 5-year probability of survival was significantly greater for high-flux patients (Kaplan-Meier: 92% vs 69%; P=0.036). High-flux dialysis significantly reduced the adverse effect of age on survival. In a Cox proportional hazard model membrane flux (high vs low) was one of the covariates with strong predictor value for reduction of death risk in non-diabetic patients. Although other variables may explain the better survival of patients exposed to high-flux dialysis the data reported here suggest that higher membrane flux, implying higher clearance of larger molecular species and independent of biocompatibility, is associated with improved survival for haemodialysis patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10737165     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ndt.a027962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant        ISSN: 0931-0509            Impact factor:   5.992


  8 in total

1.  Subcutaneous beta2-microglobulin amyloid shoulder nodulesin a long-term hemodialysis patient.

Authors:  Paul D Mendoza; Andrew Z Fenves; Metin Punar; Marvin J Stone
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2010-04

Review 2.  High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease.

Authors:  Suetonia C Palmer; Kannaiyan S Rabindranath; Jonathan C Craig; Paul J Roderick; Francesco Locatelli; Giovanni F M Strippoli
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-09-12

Review 3.  Water quality in conventional and home haemodialysis.

Authors:  Matthew J Damasiewicz; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Peter G Kerr
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 4.  Examining hemodialyzer membrane performance using proteomic technologies.

Authors:  Mario Bonomini; Luisa Pieroni; Lorenzo Di Liberato; Vittorio Sirolli; Andrea Urbani
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 5.  What is new in uremic toxicity?

Authors:  Raymond Vanholder; Steven Van Laecke; Griet Glorieux
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 3.714

6.  Effect of different synthetic membranes on laboratory parameters and survival in chronic haemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Wilhelm Kreusser; Stefanie Reiermann; Gert Vogelbusch; Josè Bartual; Eckhard Schulze-Lohoff
Journal:  NDT Plus       Date:  2010-05

7.  Dialysis membrane: from convection to adsorption.

Authors:  Antonio Santoro; Gualtiero Guadagni
Journal:  NDT Plus       Date:  2010-05

8.  Comparative Effectiveness of Dialyzers: A Longitudinal, Propensity Score-Matched Study of Incident Hemodialysis Patients.

Authors:  Scott Sibbel; Abigail Hunt; Suzanne Laplante; Werner Beck; Mary Gellens; Steven M Brunelli
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.872

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.