Literature DB >> 10970983

Influence of dialysis procedure, membrane surface and membrane material on iopromide elimination in patients with reduced kidney function.

F K Matzkies1, H Reinecke, B Tombach, M Kosch, K Hegger, M Milius, H Hohage, K Kisters, S Kerber, R M Schaefer.   

Abstract

Haemodialysis for the elimination of contrast medium in patients with advanced renal failure is a common procedure. Even though sufficient elimination with the use of regular low-flux membranes is documented, large differences in results have been reported in prior investigations. We, therefore, compared Cuprophan and polysulfone dialysers with different surface areas to haemofiltration with different amounts of substitution fluid in 40 patients with compromised renal function after coronary angiography. Plasma iodine concentrations were measured by fluorescent excitation analysis. At constant blood flow rates of 200 ml/min, Cuprophan membranes with 1. 3 m(2) surface area had a clearance rate of 87 ml/min, whereas polysulfone membranes of comparable size displayed a significantly higher clearance rate of 147 ml/min. Polysulfone membranes with 1.8 m(2) surface area showed a small but insignificant increase in the iodine clearance (162 ml/min), while Cuprophan membranes displayed an increase in clearance rates (121 ml/min). Additional ultrafiltration led to a further increase in the plasma clearance of both membranes and reduced urinary iodine excretion. Haemofiltration was comparable to haemodialysis in terms of efficacy and thus represents an alternative method. Clearance of iopromide during haemodialysis with polysulfone membranes is higher than with Cuprophan membranes. Elimination rates can be further increased by additional ultrafiltration. Haemofiltration is comparable to haemodialysis regarding contrast medium elimination. Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10970983     DOI: 10.1159/000013604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nephrol        ISSN: 0250-8095            Impact factor:   3.754


  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  A randomized controlled trial comparing hydration therapy to additional hemodialysis or N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy: the Dialysis-versus-Diuresis (DVD) Trial.

Authors:  H Reinecke; M Fobker; J Wellmann; B Becke; J Fleiter; C Heitmeyer; G Breithardt; H-W Hense; R M Schaefer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  Preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with baseline renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography.

Authors:  Po-Tsang Lee; Kang-Ju Chou; Hua-Chang Fang
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2009-02

4.  Amikacin pharmacokinetics during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis.

Authors:  Simon W Lam; Seth R Bauer
Journal:  Infect Dis Ther       Date:  2013-08-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.