A pilot study of twin dialyzers in parallel to enhance delivered KT/V

BACKGROUND: Adequacy of delivered dialysis is important in preventing morbidity in patients on hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease. A satisfactory KT/V is often difficult to obtain in patients with a large body mass despite optimization of remediable factors. AIM: This pilot study was performed to examine the hypothesis that twin dialyzers in parallel enhance delivered KT/V. METHODS: Three compliant patients on maintenance hemodialysis with post-dialysis weights greater than 95 kg who had a KT/V between 1.0 and 1.3 despite optimization of duration of dialysis, blood flow rates and anticoagulation and absence of access recirculation were studied using twin dialyzers in parallel after in vitro experiments demonstrated the safety of this technique. After a run-in period lasting over six months, during which the technique was perfected, three study treatments with twin dialyzers were compared to three treatments before and three treatments after study treatments. Both study and control treatments were performed under identical, rigidly standardized conditions. There was a wash-out period before the control and the study treatments. KT/V was calculated using the post-dialysis blood urea nitrogen (BUN) obtained by the stop-flow technique. RESULTS: KT/V was higher with twin dialyzers in parallel than with single dialyzers (mean +/- SD 1.54 +/- 0.32 for twin dialyzers vs 1.33 +/- 0.11 for single dialyzers) despite the lack of significant differences in potentially confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Using twin dialyzers in parallel appears to enhance delivered KT/V and is a safe and potentially useful technique especially in patients with a large body mass.     

Dialyzer Reuse Following Manual Reprocessing with a New Sterilant, RenNew-D

Dialysis patients are at risk for toxicity from formaldehyde used in the reprocessing of dialyzers for reuse; therefore, replacing formaldehyde as a dialyzer sterilant would be advantageous. The potential for RenNew-D as a sterilizing agent was investigated in seven stable in-center hemodialysis patients over 20 consecutive dialyses with cuprammonium cellulose hollow-fiber dialyzers. Treatment with RenNew-D showed no toxicity to patients or dialyzers except for two blood leaks occurring in one patient. The mean number of dialyzer uses was 4.9. In all the dialyzers that passed functional testing small solute clearances were maintained with reuse. The ability of RenNew-D to improve the biocompatibility of reused dialyzers was documented with mean neutrophil counts falling to only 78% of initial values during first reuse of dialyzers processed with RenNew-D compared with a decrease in neutrophil count to 2% of initial values during first use of the same dialyzers. Our results suggest that RenNew-D may be a useful alternative to formaldehyde for the purpose of dialyzer reuse. A reuse procedure that includes processing with RenNew-D is associated with improved biocompatibility, possibly because of maintenance of the blood-derived membrane coating established during prior dialysis.     

Method of Dialyzer Cleaning and Frequency of Reuse

Several methods exist for cleaning hollow fiber dialyzers for reuse. How important is the cleaning procedure in determining the number of times a dialyzer can be reused?     

The use of electrolyzed solutions for the cleaning and disinfecting of dialyzers

Recently, the use of electrolyzed solutions has attracted considerable interest in Japan. This study investigates the efficiency of electrolyzed solutions as disinfecting agents (DA) in the reuse of dialyzers and compares their efficiency to that of other disinfectants currently in use. The following 3 methods were employed. First, the rinsing time and rebound release of reused dialyzers were measured and compared after electrolyzed solutions, electrolyzed strong acid aqueous solution (ESAAS) and electrolyzed strong basic aqueous solution (ESBAS), made from reverse osmosis (RO) water (ESAAS, ESBAS; Generating apparatuses: Super Oxseed alpha 1000, Amano Corporation, Yokohama, Japan), 2% Dialox-cj (Teijin Gambro Medical, Tokyo, Japan), and 3.8% formalin were used as DAs. This involved performing dialysis with 2 types of dialyzers: a cellulose acetate membrane (CAM) dialyzer and a polysulfone membrane (PSM) dialyzer. The dialyzers were cleaned and disinfected using the different DA and left for 48 h. Next, after performing dialysis the dialyzer membranes were cleaned with a saline solution (0.9% NaCl) and RO water and then cleaned with the various DA. These membranes were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to check for the presence of physical and biological contaminants. Finally, in vitro tests were performed to determine the level of dialyzer clearance when PSM dialyzers were reused after having been cleaned and disinfected with the electrolyzed solutions. The rinsing time results for both the CAM and PSM dialyzers showed the electrolyzed solutions (ESBAS and ESAAS) as being undetectable within 10 min. With regard to the rebound release, for both the CAM and PSM dialyzers, the electrolyzed solutions were undetectable at all checking times between 30 and 240 min. Observation by SEM showed that cleaning with both ESAAS and ESBAS left the fewest contaminants, and cleaning with 2% Dialox-cj left the highest level of contaminants in the CAM dialyzers. With regard to experiments concerning use in vitro, no major changes in the dialyzer clearance were noticed after 6 uses. In every experiment, the previous investigations showed the electrolyzed solutions to be superior to 3. 8% formalin and 2% Dialox-cj DA for the reuse of dialyzers.     

Effect of RenNew-D as a sterilant on the performance of reused dialyzers

RenNew-D (Alcide), a novel demand-release sporocidal agent, was employed instead of formaldehyde in the reprocessing for reuse of cuprophan hollow fiber dialyzers (Gambro) and the performance of these dialyzers was evaluated over 40 consecutive dialyses in six patients on maintenance hemodialysis. When RenNew-D was part of automated reprocessing performed with 4.3% bleach as specified by the manufacturer (Lixivitron), dialyzer survival was prolonged (16.7 +/- 7.2 uses) and hemodialysis neutropenia was unchanged with reuse. When RenNew-D was part of manual reprocessing conducted in the absence of bleach, marked improvement in dialyzer biocompatibility was observed but with a decreased survival (4.8 +/- 3.0). The majority of dialyzer failures were due to a fall in fiber bundle volume below a 85% set limit. Small solute clearances were maintained with both types of reprocessing. Dialyses were well tolerated throughout. Our data suggest that RenNew-D is a safe and efficacious product which can serve as a valuable alternative to formaldehyde for the purpose of dialyzer reuse.     

Effect of Reuse on Dialyzer Efficacy

The effect of reuse on dialyzer efficacy was examined by measuring blood compartment volume and dialyzer mass transfer coefficient (maximum dialyzer clearance) as a function of dialyzer use number. The 102 polysulfone dialyzers tested (F60 and HF80, Fresenius) were reprocessed on Renatron machines using peroxyacetic acid as the dual cleansing and sterilizing agent. Each dialyzer was used an average of 14.4 +/- 5.7SD times and was tested once (twice for 13/102 dialyzers) during a routine dialysis session at an arbitrary use number (7.6 +/- 5.3; range 1 to 24). The parameters tested were found to decrease only marginally with reuse, corresponding to a blood compartment volume loss of approximately 1% (R = 0.04) over a 5-week/15-use period and a decrease in dialyzer mass transfer coefficient of approximately 3% (R = 0.07 and 0.06) over the same period for urea and creatinine, respectively. It was concluded that the loss in dialyzer efficacy is negligible over the average use period of almost 5 weeks per dialyzer.     

Relationship between dialyzer reuse and the presence of anti-N-like antibodies in chronic hemodialysis patients.

One hundred eleven chronic hemodialysis patients from five dialysis units were tested for the presence of antibodies reactive with red blood cell N substance; 77 patients were available for follow-up study after 18 to 24 months. Initially, 18 patients (16%) had serum anti-N-like antibodies. Thirteen of these patients were in a home dialysis program and were reusing hollow fiber dialyzers. The other five had practiced hollow fiber dialyzer reuse in the past. None of 37 patients using coil dialyzers had anti-N-like antibody. On follow-up testing, anti-N-like antibody persisted in all patients restudied except for one who had a successful renal transplant. Anti-N-like antibodies developed in four additional patients: three were reusing hollow fiber dialyzers at the time, but one had not reused dialyzers for 24 months. Statistical analyses indicated that dialyzer reuse, hollow fiber dialyzers, and home dialysis were significantly related to the presence of anti-N-like antibodies. We interpret the clinical and statistical data to indicate that dialyzer reuse is the major clinical factor in the development of anti-N-like antibody. The likely mechanism involves the prolonged exposure of red cells trapped in the dialyzer to formaldehyde used in preparing dialyzers for reuse. No adverse clinical effects of anti-N-like antibodies were evident in our patients, but hemolysis and acute transplant failure have been reported by others.     

Anaphylactoid reactions associated with reuse of hollow-fiber hemodialyzers and ACE inhibitors.

From July 18 through November 27, 1989, 12 anaphylactoid reactions (ARs) occurred in 10 patients at a hemodialysis center in Virginia. One patient required hospitalization; no patients died. ARs occurred within minutes of initiating dialysis and were characterized by peripheral numbness and tingling, laryngeal edema or angioedema, facial or generalized sensation of warmth, and/or nausea or vomiting. All 12 ARs occurred with dialyzers that had been reprocessed with an automated reprocessing system. A cohort study, including all patients undergoing dialysis sessions on the six days when an AR occurred, showed that the patients who experienced ARs were significantly more likely than patients who did not to be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (7/10 vs. 3/33; relative risk = 7.9; 95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 25.2) and to have been exposed to reused dialyzers rather than to new dialyzers (12/70 sessions vs. 0/31; P = 0.016). In those sessions using a reused dialyzer, the mean number of dialyzer uses in case-sessions was significantly higher than for noncase-sessions (10.3 vs. 6.2; P = 0.016). After reuse of dialyzers was discontinued at the center, no further ARs occurred, despite the continued administration of ACE inhibitors. This is the first report of an outbreak of ARs associated exclusively with reused dialyzers. We hypothesize that interactions between a dialyzer that has been repeatedly reprocessed and reused, blood, and additional factors, such as ACE inhibitors, increased the risk of developing ARs.     

Dialyzer reuse-Part I: Historical perspective

The first apparatus for hemodialysis in animals, made painstakingly by Abel et al. in their laboratory at the beginning of 20th century, was cleaned with acid-pepsin to digest blood, disinfected with thymol, and reused for up to 30 experiments for as long as 8 months. The obvious incentive was saving time. In the early years of hemodialysis in patients, dialyzers and lines were assembled and sterilized immediately before dialysis. Various methods of dry and moist heat sterilization and miscellaneous chemical agents were employed for disinfection. Significant time was required to assemble the dialyzers, so there was an incentive to reuse previously assembled dialyzers to save time, especially for home hemodialysis. Bleach to clean and formaldehyde to disinfect the membranes and lines was used for this purpose. Preassembled dialyzers, commercially introduced in the 1950s, were the most expensive components of hemodialysis systems, therefore reprocessing of these dialyzers was the most effective way to save money. Refrigeration of coil dialyzers with blood, introduced in the mid-1960s, was associated with frequent febrile reactions and was soon abandoned. Preassembled coil and plate dialyzers permitted almost complete return of blood after dialysis and led to the introduction of chemical disinfection for dialyzer reprocessing. A variety of disinfectants have been used. Formaldehyde was the most common disinfectant until the end of the 1970s. Sodium hypochlorite was used to clean the majority of dialyzers and to sterilize dialyzers with polyacrylonitrile membranes. In the early 1980s, peracetic acid and glutaraldehyde started to compete with formaldehyde. By the 1990s, formaldehyde had become less popular than peracetic acid. In the mid-1990s, disinfection and membrane cleaning with acetic acid and heat was introduced. Manual reprocessing was replaced by early reuse machines in the mid-1970s and a more sophisticated second generation of automated hemodialyzer reprocessing machines followed in the late 1970s. Recently disinfection of dialyzers with moist heat has resumed. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations for designing a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and moist-heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, the reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines has become less popular and is almost extinct.     

Severe dialyzer dysfunction undetectable by standard reprocessing validation tests

It is generally accepted that careful monitoring of total cell volume and ultrafiltration rates will ensure adequate function of reprocessed dialyzers. During routine urea kinetic measurements we noted that the percent of patients with clearances less than 200 ml/min increased from 5% to 48% despite adherence to these validation tests. As these patients did not have evidence of recirculation in the vascular access, possible causes of dialyzer dysfunction were investigated. Injection of methylene blue into the dialysate port revealed non-uniform flow of dialysate in dialyzers from patients with markedly reduced clearances. In vitro studies of dialyzers subjected to sequential daily reprocessing, without patient exposure, demonstrated that in vitro clearances declined in one lot but not another. The initial clearances of 218 +/- 4 ml/min fell progressively to 112 +/- 18 (P less than 0.001) after 15 reuses. No effects of reprocessing were found in a different lot (230 +/- 2 vs. 226 +/- 4 ml/min). Soaking the dialyzers from the affected lot in either the disinfectant or dialysate solution caused a decline in the clearances which was less than that of serial reuse. Although the magnitude of the problem of dialyzer malfunction with reuse is unknown, careful attention to dialyzer function is warranted in patients treated with reprocessed dialyzers.     

The effects of reprocessing high-flux polysulfone dialyzers with peroxyacetic acid on beta 2-microglobulin removal in hemodiafiltration.

The reuse of dialyzers is widely practiced, especially in the United States. Despite this, the effects of reuse on the efficacy of removal of solutes and more recently proteins such as beta 2-microglobulin (beta 2M) are the subject of much debate. There is considerable evidence to suggest that reuse after cleansing and sterilizing with formalin, with or without bleach, maintains dialyzer performance. In this study, we have examined peroxyacetic acid use as the cleansing and sterilizing agent using Renatron machines. We analyzed reuse in 24 patients using polysulfone membranes in a hemodiafiltration (HDF) unit over a 2-year period. The mean maximum number of uses achieved was 20.1 +/- 0.5. Several factors considered clinically to influence the number of reuses achievable (hemoglobin, white blood cell, and platelet levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], and fibrinogen and total protein levels) were found not to influence the maximum number of uses obtainable. We then assessed prospectively the performance of 26 polysulfone dialyzers after peroxyacetic acid reprocessing up to 20 times, particularly with regard to their ability to remove beta 2M. We report that this combination of polysulfone membranes reprocessed with peroxyacetic acid used for HDF up to 20 times exhibits a maintained high level removal of compounds beyond a molecular weight (MW) of 12,000. Any secondary membrane formation that occurs appears not to influence the subsequent removal of beta 2M. Thus, we would recommend the use of peroxyacetic acid for reprocessing dialyzers in a safe and efficacious manner.     

Rebound kinetics of beta2-microglobulin after hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of beta2-microglobulin (beta2m) removal during hemodialysis using predialysis and immediate postdialysis plasma concentrations is only valid in the absence of postdialysis rebound. Postdialysis rebound of beta2m has not been studied extensively, and its importance in the determination of beta2m clearance is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the kinetics of urea and beta2m in a crossover study of 10 chronic hemodialysis patients using dialyzers with similar urea mass transfer-area coefficients containing either low-flux cellulose acetate or high-flux cellulose triacetate membranes. Kinetics were examined during and following a 210 minute treatment by measuring plasma concentrations predialysis at regular intervals during therapy and at 0, 2, 10, 20, 30, and 60 minutes postdialysis. Clearances of urea and beta2m were also determined directly from the arterial and venous concentration differences across the dialyzer at 60 minutes after starting dialysis. RESULTS: By design, urea removal was similar for both low-flux and high-flux dialyzers as assessed by the urea reduction ratio and Kt/V. Postdialysis urea rebound was similar for low- and high-flux dialyzers; the rebound in the plasma urea nitrogen concentration (expressed as a percentage of the intradialytic decrease in plasma concentration) was 9.2 +/- 1.9% (mean +/- SEM) at 30 minutes postdialysis and 13.0 +/- 1.4% at 60 minutes postdialysis for a single pool urea Kt/V of 1.16 +/- 0.05. The plasma beta2m concentration increased by 11.1 +/- 3.0% during the treatment using the low-flux dialyzer but decreased by 27.1 +/- 4.0% during the treatment using the high-flux dialyzer. When using the high-flux dialyzer, the rebound of beta2m was 44.8 +/- 21.4% at 30 minute postdialysis and 45.9 +/- 15.9% at 60 minutes postdialysis. The clearance of beta2m for the high-flux dialyzer calculated from predialysis and immediate postdialysis plasma concentrations using a single-compartment model (28.2 +/- 4.4 ml/min) was higher (P < 0.05) than that determined directly across the dialyzer (18.3 +/- 2.0 ml/min). If either the 30- or 60-minute postdialysis plasma beta2m concentration was used instead, the calculated beta2m clearance (16. 5 +/- 4.8 ml/min or 15.6 +/- 2.8 ml/min, respectively) was similar to that determined directly across the dialyzer. CONCLUSIONS: Postdialysis rebound of beta2m when using high-flux dialyzers is substantial; neglecting postdialysis rebound results in an overestimation of beta2m clearance when calculated using a single-compartment model.     

Dialyzer reuse--part II: advantages and disadvantages

Although single dialyzer use and reuse by chemical reprocessing are both associated with some complications, there is no definitive advantage to either in this respect. Some complications occur mainly at the first use of a dialyzer: a new cellophane or cuprophane membrane may activate the complement system, or a noxious agent may be introduced to the dialyzer during production or generated during storage. These agents may not be completely removed during the routine rinsing procedure. The reuse of dialyzers is associated with environmental contamination, allergic reactions, residual chemical infusion (rebound release), inadequate concentration of disinfectants, and pyrogen reactions. Bleach used during reprocessing causes a progressive increase in dialyzer permeability to larger molecules, including albumin. Reprocessing methods without the use of bleach are associated with progressive decreases in membrane permeability, particularly to larger molecules. Most comparative studies have not shown differences in mortality between centers reusing and those not reusing dialyzers, however, the largest cluster of dialysis-related deaths occurred with single-use dialyzers due to the presence of perfluorohydrocarbon introduced during the manufacturing process and not completely removed during preparation of the dialyzers before the dialysis procedure. The cost savings associated with reuse is substantial, especially with more expensive, high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzers. With reuse, some dialysis centers can afford to utilize more efficient dialyzers that are more expensive; consequently they provide a higher dose of dialysis and reduce mortality. Some studies have shown minimally higher morbidity with chemical reuse, depending on the method. Waste disposal is definitely decreased with the reuse of dialyzers, thus environmental impacts are lessened, particularly if reprocessing is done by heat disinfection. It is safe to predict that dialyzer reuse in dialysis centers will continue because it also saves money for the providers. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations to design a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines is becoming less popular and is almost extinct.     

Dialyzer Reuse: Interaction Between Dialyzer Membrane, Disinfectant (Formalin), and Blood During Dialyzer Reprocessing

Abstract: The growing practice of dialyzer reuse in recent years is mainly based on medical and economic considerations. However, adverse reactions such as immunohemolytic anemia due to anti-N_from antibody associated with dialyzer reuse have been reported. In this study, scanning electron microscopy and cytologic staining were used to evaluate the interaction between blood components and the reprocessed synthetic dialyzer membrane (polysulfone) after disinfectant (formaldehyde) treatment. The results showed that various blood components such as fibrin and blood cells still adhered to the dialyzer membrane after reprocessing. The study also demonstrated that the adhered denatured blood components could be detached by sonication andlor simulated hemodialysis and then gain access into the circulation. The re-entry of the denatured blood components to the patients exposed to reused dialyzers may result in an enhanced imrnunological response which may contribute to antibody formation (such as anti-N_from antibody) with a reused hemodialyzer.     

Association of dialyzer reuse and hospitalization rates among hemodialysis patients in the US

OBJECTIVES: To determine if reuse of hemodialyzers is associated with higher rates of hospitalization and their resulting costs among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. METHODS: Noncurrent cohort study of hospitalization rates among 27,264 ESRD patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987. RESULTS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers was associated with a greater rate of hospitalization than in facilities not reprocessing (relative rate (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.14). This higher rate of hospitalization was observed with dialyzer reuse using peracetic/acetic acids (RR = 1.11, CI 1. 04-1.18) and formaldehyde (RR = 1.07, CI 1.00-1.14), but not glutaraldehyde (p = 0.97). There was no difference among hospitalization rates in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with any sterilant and those not reprocessing. Hospitalization for causes other than vascular access morbidity in free-standing facilities reusing dialyzers with formaldehyde was not different from hospitalization in facilities not reusing. However, reuse with peracetic/acetic acids was associated with higher rates of hospitalization than formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, CI 1.03-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acids or formaldehyde was associated with greater hospitalization than dialysis without dialyzer reprocessing. This greater hospitalization accounts for a large increment in inpatient stays in the USA. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable morbidity among hemodialysis patients. Copyright Copyright 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel     

A Quality and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Dialyzer Reuse in Hemodialysis Patients

Background. To evaluate the benefits of dialyzer reuse for hemodialysis (HD) patients, including the cost of HD treatment and patient's survival, a comparison was made regarding the standard practice of single-use dialysis. Methods. From January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, a total of 128,232 successive HD treatments in 822 patients in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Kaohsiung Medical Center were included in this study. Results. Approximately 54.25% (446/822) of patients reused dialyzers. The average times of dialyzer reuse was 2.54. The annual hollow fiber cost is reduced by $241,054.08 U.S. dollars (NT $7,834,257.60). The annual cost of hollow fiber was reduced by $540.48 U.S. dollars (NT $17,565.60) in one patient with dialyzer reuse. The mortality rates in dialyzer reuse and single use groups were 3.1% and 10.9% within one year (p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regressions showed that single use compared with reuse was associated with higher mortality after adjusting co-morbid conditions including age, diabetes mellitus, etc. Conclusions. We concluded that the benefits of dialyzer reuse included safety in our center and reduction in cost during a 12-month period. Dialyzer reuse may be a safe alternative.     

Impact of bleach cleaning on the performance of dialyzers with polysulfone membranes processed for reuse using peracetic Acid

Dialyzer performance may change with reuse depending on whether or not the dialyzer is cleaned with bleach. Bleach is usually used in conjunction with formaldehyde as the germicide. Because few data are available for dialyzers cleaned with bleach and disinfected with peracetic acid, we examined dialyzer performance in a cross-over study of dialyzers containing polysulfone membranes reprocessed using bleach and peracetic acid or peracetic acid alone. Each dialyzer was used for a total of 16 treatments, or until it failed standard criteria for continued use. Urea, beta2-microglobulin, and albumin removal were determined during the first, second, seventh, and 16th use of each dialyzer. Urea removal did not differ between the two reprocessing methods and did not change with reuse. Overall, beta2-microglobulin removal remained unchanged in dialyzers reprocessed with peracetic acid alone, but tended to increase after the seventh use in dialyzers reprocessed with bleach and peracetic acid. Approximately 60% of beta2-microglobulin removal resulted from trapping of beta2-microglobulin at the dialyzer membrane. Albumin loss into the dialysate was clinically insignificant throughout the study with both reprocessing methods. These data show that the clearance of both small and large molecules by dialyzers containing polysulfone membranes is well maintained by reprocessing with peracetic acid and that additional cleaning with bleach has limited impact on performance.     

Dialyzer reuse: what we know and what we don't know

Despite extensive clinical experience, the effects of different reuse procedures have not been fully evaluated. The available data suggest that the effect of reuse on dialyzer performance depends upon the type of chemicals employed, the membrane type, and the size of the solute whose removal is being assessed. The effect of reuse on urea clearance is essentially defined by the residual cell volume with a total cell volume of > 80% associated with a dialyzer clearance that is within 10% of its original value. The effect of reuse on large solute clearance can be dramatic, with the procedure resulting in substantial changes in the beta2-microglobulin clearance of different dialyzers. Of note is the limited data available regarding the effect of reuse procedures on dialyzers processed more than 20 times.     

Beta 2-microglobulin kinetics in maintenance hemodialysis: a comparison of conventional and high-flux dialyzers and the effects of dialyzer reuse

beta 2-Microglobulin (beta 2M) forms synovial and bony amyloid deposits in long-term hemodialysis patients. To define the kinetics of beta 2M during hemodialysis and the effects of dialyzer reprocessing, we measured serum beta 2M, plasma C3a, and neutrophil counts immediately predialysis; 15, 90, and 180 minutes after beginning dialysis; and 15 minutes postdialysis in ten chronic hemodialysis patients. The studies were performed during first and third uses of cuprammonium rayon and polysulfone dialyzers processed by rinsing with water, then bleach, in an automated system (Seratronics DRS 4) and then packed in 1.5% formaldehyde. Mean serum beta 2M (corrected for ultrafiltration) decreased by 16.6% +/- 18.1% with new cuprammonium dialyzers and 57.1% +/- 12.8% with new polysulfone dialyzers. Dialyzer reprocessing had no significant effect on this decline. Predialysis serum beta 2M decreased by 30.4% +/- 15.5% 1 month after switching from cuprammonium to polysulfone dialyzers; these levels remained stable after 3 months of dialysis with polysulfone. Complement activation and neutropenia during dialysis were significantly more marked with cuprammonium, but were not affected by reprocessing of either dialyzer. In vitro adsorption of 124I-beta 2M to polysulfone fibers was greater than to cuprammonium; adsorption was not influenced by dialyzer reprocessing.     

High-flux dialysis lowers plasma leptin concentration in chronic dialysis patients

Leptin is a protein produced by fat cells and involved in body weight regulation. Plasma leptin is significantly higher in some hemodialysis (HD) patients than in normal controls. We examined the influence of dialyzer membrane biocompatibility and flux on elevated plasma leptin concentrations in hemodialysis patients. Employing a crossover design, leptin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) levels were serially determined in eight chronic dialysis patients. Patients were dialyzed sequentially on low-flux cellulosic (TAF) dialyzers, low-flux (F8) polysulfone, high-flux (F80B) polysulfone, then low-flux polysulfone and cellulosic dialyzers again. Mean leptin concentrations were similar when low-flux polysulfone or cellulosic dialyzers were employed (141.9+/-24.2 microg/L versus 137.8+/-18.4 microg/L, respectively (P=NS). In contrast, leptin fell significantly on the high-flux polysulfone dialyzer (99.4+/-16.2 microg/L) compared with cellulosic (P < 0.005), and low-flux polysulfone dialyzers (P < 0.02). Leptin clearance by the high-flux polysulfone dialyzer was significantly higher than the low-flux dialyzers (50.4+/-21.5 v -9.6+/-10.3 mL/min; P=0.043), but did not account fully for the 30% decline in plasma leptin during the high-flux arm of the study. Concentrations of TNF-alpha were lower when high-flux polysulfone dialyzers were employed, but there was no correlation of individual TNF-alpha levels with leptin concentrations. High-flux dialysis lowers plasma leptin concentrations an average of 30%, but biocompatibility does not influence leptin levels. The decrease in plasma leptin on high-flux dialysis cannot be explained solely by enhanced clearance.