2005
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003234.pub2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
0
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although there is no definitive evidence to support the use of synthetic (biocompatible), high-flux membranes rather than the non-synthetic, cellulose type, 38 there may be benefits due to reduced progression of ␤2M-related dialysis amyloidosis, 39 improved systolic cardiac function, 40 prevention of the development of lipoprotein abnormalities 41 and reduction in intra-dialytic symptoms. 42 Synthetic membranes are expensive and financial constraints play a significant role in dictating the type used.…”
Section: Membrane Use (Clinical Questionnaire)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there is no definitive evidence to support the use of synthetic (biocompatible), high-flux membranes rather than the non-synthetic, cellulose type, 38 there may be benefits due to reduced progression of ␤2M-related dialysis amyloidosis, 39 improved systolic cardiac function, 40 prevention of the development of lipoprotein abnormalities 41 and reduction in intra-dialytic symptoms. 42 Synthetic membranes are expensive and financial constraints play a significant role in dictating the type used.…”
Section: Membrane Use (Clinical Questionnaire)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 The high morbidity and mortality of maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients commonly were regarded as a result of dialysis membranes bio-incapability. However, in a recent Cochrane review on this subject, 3 no evidence of benefit was found when biocompatible membranes were compared with cellulose/modified cellulose membranes in terms of reduced mortality or reduction in dialysis-related adverse symptoms. So it became apparent that not all adverse reactions during HD were solely due to dialyzer membrane composition, and that dialyzer design, membrane flux, anticoagulation with unfractionated heparins, dialysate water impurities, composition, and sterilants, such as ethylene oxide, could all cause sudden adverse effects during dialysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas a recent overview suggested some benefit of biocompatibility (not flux) on the clinical outcome of chronic HD patients [36] , a recent meta-analysis did not find any advantage of either biocompatibility or flux [37] . Moreover, the only prospective randomized trial comparing low-flux with high-flux dialyzers showed no major differences in the clinical outcome between the two modalities [38] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%