Elimination of Large Uremic Toxins by a Dialyzer Specifically Designed for High-Volume Convective TherapiesMaduell F.a · Arias-Guillen M.a · Fontseré N.a · Ojeda R.a · Rico N.b · Vera M.a · Elena M.b · Bedini J.L.b · Wieneke P.c · Campistol J.M.a
Departments of aNephrology and Renal Transplantation and bBiochemistry, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; cFresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Research and Development, Clinical Research, Bad Homburg, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: Unlike conventional hemodialysis treatments, which rely almost solely on diffusion-related mechanisms for solute removal, hemodiafiltration (HDF) allows more efficient removal of higher molecular weight toxins due to convective transport mechanisms. To facilitate the removal of these toxins in HDF treatment modalities, dialyzers with highly efficient high-flux membranes are necessary. This study assessed the large uremic toxin removal ability of a high-flux dialyzer (FX CorDiax 60) specifically designed to facilitate convective therapies compared with a standard high-flux dialyzer (FX 60). Methods: In an open, randomized, cross-over, single-center, controlled, prospective clinical study, 30 adult chronic hemodialysis patients were treated by post-dilution online HDF with the FX 60 or the FX CorDiax 60 dialyzer. All other dialysis parameters were kept constant in both study arms. The reduction rate (RR) of blood urea nitrogen, phosphate, β2-microglobulin (β2-m), myoglobin, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, α1-acid glycoprotein, albumin and total protein as well as the elimination into dialysate was intraindividually compared for the two dialyzer types. Results: For FX CorDiax 60 versus FX 60, the RR was significantly higher for blood urea nitrogen (86.23 ± 4.14 vs. 84.89 ± 4.59%, p = 0.015), β2-m (84.67 ± 3.79 vs. 81.30 ± 4.82%, p < 0.0001), myoglobin (75.23 ± 10.48 vs. 58.60 ± 12.1%, p < 0.0001), prolactin (72.96 ± 9.68 vs. 56.91 ± 13.01%, p < 0.0001) and α1-microglobulin (20.89 ± 18.27 vs. 13.60 ± 12.50%, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in the RR for phosphate, α1-acid glycoprotein, albumin and total protein. Mass removal was significantly higher with the FX CorDiax 60 than with the FX 60 for β2-m (0.26 ± 0.09 vs. 0.24 ± 0.09 g, p = 0.0006), myoglobin (1.83 ± 0.89 vs. 1.51 ± 0.76 mg, p = 0.0017), prolactin (0.17 ± 0.13 vs. 0.14 ± 0.08 mg, p = 0.02) and albumin (4.25 ± 3.49 vs. 3.01 ± 2.37 g, p = 0.03). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that treating patients with an FX CorDiax 60 instead of an FX 60 dialyzer in post-dilution HDF mode significantly increases the elimination of middle molecules.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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.