The Next Generation of Dialysis Membranes � Barriers or Pathways?

Streicher, E; Schneider, H.

doi:10.1159/000410206

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More permeable membranes, such as polysulfone membrane and a series of modified cellulose membranes which became available in 1984, facilitated the introduction of high‐flux hemodialysis (HFHD) by increasing the spectrum of solutes removed during the treatment 6 . The clinical use of highly permeable membranes with high blood flow rates, however, resulted in increased rates of ultrafiltration and in many cases severe hypotension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical use of high‐efficiency hemodialysis treatments: Long‐term assessment

Bosch¹,

Lew

Barlee³

et al. 2006

Hemodialysis International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant technological changes in blood flow rate, dialyzer membrane permeability, bicarbonate dialysate, and ultrafiltration-controlled delivery systems permitted the implementation of 3 modifications to conventional hemodialysis as follows: high-efficiency hemodialysis (HEHD), high-flux hemodialysis (HFHD), and double-high-flux hemodiafiltration (HDF). The impact of these techniques on the quantity of the treatment administered and treatment time were assessed. One hundred and eighty-three patients were enrolled over 6 years. Monthly Kt/Vurea and dialysis treatment time were compared among the treatment techniques. In vivo extracorporeal clearances were measured for the dialyzers used. In vivo kinetically derived effective dialyzer clearances were calculated from Kt/V. Patient survival and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) were determined for each treatment modality. Treatment time averaged 192+/-28, 176+/-29, and 159+/-32 min, Kt/Vurea averaged 1.33+/-.34, 1.29+/-.30, 1.41+/-.32, and in vivo delivered urea clearance averaged 222+/-51, 272+/-34, and 333+/-43 mL/min for HEHD, HFHD, and HDF, respectively. These results were achieved even in patients with body weights in excess of 80 kgs. Net ultrafiltration rate during the treatment reached 20-30 mL/min, without clinical untoward effects. Blood flow rate ranged between 450-650 mL/min in all patients. Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis yielded a significant difference when high-efficiency treatments were compared with USRDS outcomes. Standardized mortality ratio analysis showed significance for only HDF vs. USRDS. High-efficiency treatments can provide the same quantity of treatment in a shorter period of time without affecting mortality. The increased spectrum of solutes removal provided by HFHD and HDF may be a further advantage of these treatments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical use of high‐efficiency hemodialysis treatments: Long‐term assessment

Bosch¹,

Lew

Barlee³

et al. 2006

Hemodialysis International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High-flux hemodialysis was developed as a concept of simultaneous diffusive and convective transport in a single device (10). The essential feature of this treatment modality is the use of synthetic "open" membranes with high diffusive and hydraulic permeability.…”

Section: High-flux Hemodialysismentioning

confidence: 99%

High‐Efficiency Short‐Time Dialysis Is Safe and Will Replace Conventional Hemodialysis

Bosch

1993

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This technique [25] was de veloped as a concept of simultaneous diffusive and con vective transport in a single device. The essential feature of this treatment modality is the use of synthetic 'open' membranes with high diffusive and hydraulic permeabil ity.…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%