Literature DB >> 34987784

Flummoxed by flux: the indeterminate principles of haemodialysis.

Sudhir K Bowry1, Fatih Kircelli2, Madhukar Misra3.   

Abstract

In haemodialysis (HD), unwanted substances (uraemic retention solutes or 'uraemic toxins') that accumulate in uraemia are removed from blood by transport across the semipermeable membrane. Like all membrane separation processes, the transport requires driving forces to facilitate the transfer of molecules across the membrane. The magnitude of the transport is quantified by the phenomenon of 'flux', a finite parameter defined as the volume of fluid (or permeate) transferred per unit area of membrane surface per unit time. In HD, as transmembrane pressure is applied to facilitate fluid flow or flux across the membrane to enhance solute removal, flux is defined by the ultrafiltration coefficient (KUF; mL/h/mmHg) reflecting the hydraulic permeability of the membrane. However, in HD, the designation of flux has come to be used in a much broader sense and the term is commonly used interchangeably and erroneously with other measures of membrane separation processes, resulting in considerable confusion. Increased flux is perceived to reflect more 'porous' membranes having 'larger' pores, even though other membrane and therapy attributes determine the magnitude of flux achieved during HD. Adjectival designations of flux (low-, mid-, high-, super-, ultra-) have found indiscriminate usage in the scientific literature to qualify a parameter that influences clinical decision making and prescription of therapy modalities (low-flux or high-flux HD). Over the years the concept and definition of flux has undergone arbitrary and periodic adjustment and redefinition by authors in publications, regulatory bodies (US Food and Drug Administration) and professional association guidelines (European Renal Association, Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative), with little consensus. Industry has stretched the boundaries of flux to derive marketing advantages, justify increased reimbursement or contrive new classes of therapy modalities when in fact flux is just one of several specifications that determine membrane or dialyser performance. Membranes considered as high-flux previously are today at the lower end of the flux spectrum. Further, additional parameters unrelated to the rate of diffusive or convective transport (flux) are used in conjunction with or in place of KUF to allude to flux: clearance (mL/min, e.g. of β2-microglobulin) or sieving coefficients (dimensionless). Considering that clinical trials in nephrology, designed to make therapy recommendations and guide policy with economic repercussions, are based on the parameter flux they merit clarification-by regulatory authorities and scientists alike-to avoid further misappropriation.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  flux; haemodialysis; hydraulic permeability; membranes; pore size; ultrafiltration

Year:  2021        PMID: 34987784      PMCID: PMC8711754          DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfab182

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Kidney J        ISSN: 2048-8505


  69 in total

Review 1.  What clinically important advances in understanding and improving dialyzer function have occurred recently?

Authors:  R A Ward; J K Leypoldt; W R Clark; C Ronco; G J Mishkin; E P Paganini
Journal:  Semin Dial       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 2.  Advantages of new hemodialysis membranes and equipment.

Authors:  R Vanholder; G Glorieux; W Van Biesen
Journal:  Nephron Clin Pract       Date:  2009-11-28

Review 3.  Dynamic hemodialysis: a potential solution for middle molecule removal.

Authors:  Jeong Chul Kim; Francesco Garzotto; Claudio Ronco
Journal:  Contrib Nephrol       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 1.580

Review 4.  Definition of high-performance membranes - from the clinical point of view.

Authors:  Akira Saito
Journal:  Contrib Nephrol       Date:  2011-08-08       Impact factor: 1.580

5.  Clinical comparison of super high-flux HD and on-line HDF.

Authors:  Akira Fujimori
Journal:  Blood Purif       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 2.614

6.  History of the science of dialysis.

Authors:  C W Gottschalk; S K Fellner
Journal:  Am J Nephrol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.754

7.  Dialyzer ultrafiltration coefficients: comparison between in vitro and in vivo values.

Authors:  P R Keshaviah; E G Constantini; D A Luehmann; F L Shapiro
Journal:  Artif Organs       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 3.094

8.  Dialysis membrane-dependent removal of middle molecules during hemodiafiltration: the beta2-microglobulin/albumin relationship.

Authors:  P G Ahrenholz; R E Winkler; A Michelsen; D A Lang; S K Bowry
Journal:  Clin Nephrol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 0.975

Review 9.  The MPO Study: just a European HEMO Study or something very different?

Authors:  Francesco Locatelli; Adelheid Gauly; Stanislaw Czekalski; Thierry Hannedouche; Stefan H Jacobson; Alfredo Loureiro; Alejandro Martin-Malo; Menelaos Papadimitriou; Jutta Passlick-Deetjen; Claudio Ronco; Raymond Vanholder; Volker Wizemann
Journal:  Blood Purif       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.614

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.