4.6 Article

Performance of hemodialysis with novel medium cut-off dialyzers

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 165-172

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfw310

关键词

beta2-microglobulin; dialysis; hemodiafiltration; hemodialysis; uremic toxins

资金

  1. Baxter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Compared to high-flux dialysis membranes, novel medium cut-off (MCO) membranes show greater permeability for largermiddlemolecules. Methods. In two prospective, open-label, controlled, randomized, crossover pilot studies, 39 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients were studied in four dialysis treatments as follows: study 1, three MCO prototype dialyzers (AA, BB and CC with increasing permeability) and one high-flux dialyzer in HD; and study 2, two MCO prototype dialyzers (AA and BB) in HD and high-flux dialyzers in HD and hemodiafiltration (HDF). Primary outcome was lambda free light chain (kFLC) overall clearance. Secondary outcomes included overall clearances and pre-to-post-reduction ratios ofmiddle and smallmolecules, and safety of MCO HD treatments. Results. MCO HD provided greater kFLC overall clearance [least square mean (standard error)] as follows: study 1: MCO AA 8.5 (0.54), MCO BB 11.3 (0.51), MCO CC 15.0 (0.53) versus high-flux HD 3.6 (0.51) mL/min; study 2: MCO AA 10.0 (0.58), MCO BB 12.5 (0.57) versus high-flux HD 4.4 (0.57) and HDF 6.2 (0.58) mL/min. Differences between MCO and high-flux dialyzers were consistently significant in mixed model analysis (each P < 0.001). Reduction ratios of kFLC were greater for MCO. Clearances of alpha 1-microglobulin, complement factor D, kappa FLC (kappa FLC) and myoglobin were generally greater with MCO than with high-flux HD and similar to or greater than clearances with HDF. Albumin loss was moderate with MCO, but greater than with high-flux HD and HDF. Conclusions. MCO HD removes a wide range of middle molecules more effectively than high-flux HD and even exceeds the performance of high-volume HDF for large solutes, particularly kFLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据