The Effect of Increasing Surface Area of Dialyzer Membrane on Adequacy of Hemodialysis



Abstract Views
433

Downloads
727

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Sep 25, 2021
Published Nov 30, 2021
10.24018/clinicmed.2021.2.6.130

Abstract viewed = 433 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Introduction: The patients with end stage renal disease requires 12 hours of hemodialysis per week divided in three equal sessions (4 hours/day for 3 days/week). Some studies show that adequacy of hemodialysis can be maintained by increasing the surface area of the dialyzer membrane and decreasing the frequency of treatment which can help the poor socioeconomic status patients in getting effective hemodialysis at a low cost.

Objectives: To observe whether by increasing the surface area of dialyzer the dose of dialysis can be reduced against the standard hemodialysis prescription.

Study design: Randomized Control Trial.

Study Duration: Six months from March 2017 to August 2017.

Settings: Department of Nephrology, The Indus Hospital Karachi.

Subjects: ESRD patients undergoing Hemodialysis for at least 6 months at The Indus Hospital Karachi.

Methods: In this prospective randomized control study, a total of 60 patients of end stage renal disease receiving hemodialysis for more than six months were included and divided into 2 groups randomly (Arm-A: twice weekly dialysis using a larger surface area dialyzer and Arm-:B thrice weekly dialysis using regular surface area dialyzer).

Results: A total of 59 (30 in Arm A and 29 in Arm B) patients were enrolled in the study out of which majority of the patients were male (59.3%). On average significantly higher URR and eKt/V were reported in Arm A whereas, higher mean standard (weekly) stdKt/V was reported in Arm-B.

Conclusion: Standard protocols should be followed to maintain the adequacy of Hemodialysis.

Keywords: Dialyzer, hemodialysis, hemodialysis adequacy

References

  1. Grace BS, Clayton P, Cass A, McDonald SP. Socio-economic status and incidence of renal replacement therapy: a registry study of Australian patients. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2012;27(11):4173-80.
     Google Scholar
  2. Hommel K, Rasmussen S, Kamper AL, Madsen M. Regional and social inequalities in chronic renal replacement therapy in Denmark. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(8):2624-32.
     Google Scholar
  3. Morton RL, Schlackow I, Mihaylova B, Staplin ND, Gray A, Cass A. The impact of social disadvantage in moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease: an equity-focused systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31(1):46-56.
     Google Scholar
  4. Misra M. The basics of hemodialysis equipment. Hemodial Int. 2005;9(1):30-6.
     Google Scholar
  5. Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS. Handbook of Dialysis. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2015.
     Google Scholar
  6. Leypoldt JK. Urea standard Kt/Vurea for assessing dialysis treatment adequacy. Hemod Int. 2004;8(2):193-7.
     Google Scholar
  7. Hakim R, Depner T, Parker T. Adequacy of hemodialysis. Am J Kid Dis. 1992;20(2):107-23.
     Google Scholar
  8. Chowdhury N, Islam F, Zafreen F, Begum B, Sultana N, Perveen S, et al. Effect Of Surface Area Of Dialyzer Membrane On The Adequacy Of Haemodialysis. J Armed Forc Med Coll, Bangla. 2012;7(2):9-11.
     Google Scholar
  9. Panagoutsos S, Yannatos E, Passadakis P, Thodis E, Galtsidopoulos O, Vargemezis V. The clinical impact of increasing the hemodialysis dose. Hemod Int 2001; 5: 51-4.
     Google Scholar
  10. Imtiaz S, Salman B, Qureshi R, Drohlia MF, Ahmad A. A review of the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease in Pakistan: A global and regional perspective. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation. 2018; 29(6): 1441.
     Google Scholar
  11. Doig GS, Simpson F. Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care. 2005; 20(2): 187-91; discussion 91-3.
     Google Scholar
  12. Galach M, Ciechanowska A, Sabalinska S, Waniewski J, Wojcicki J, Werynskis A. Impact of convective transport on dialyzer clearance. J Artif Organs. 2003; 6(1): 42-8.
     Google Scholar
  13. Locatelli F, Manzoni C, Di Filippo S. The importance of convective transport. Kidney Int Suppl. 2002; 61(80): 115-20.
     Google Scholar
  14. Jaffrin MY. Convective mass transfer in hemodialysis. Artif Organs. 1995; 19(11): 1162-71.
     Google Scholar
  15. Jaffrin MY, Ding LH, Laurent JM. Simultaneous convective and diffusive mass transfers in a hemodialyser. J Biomech Eng. 1990; 112(2): 212-9.
     Google Scholar
  16. Sigdell JE. Calculation of combined diffusive and convective mass transfer. Int J Artif Organs. 1982; 5(6): 361-72.
     Google Scholar
  17. Gostoli C, Gatta A. Mass transfer in a hollow fiber dialyzer. J Membrane Sci. 1980; 6: 133-48.
     Google Scholar
  18. Azar AT. Increasing dialysate flow rate increases dialyzer urea clearance and dialysis efficiency: an in vivo study. Saudi Journal of kidney diseases and transplantation. 2009; 20(6): 1023.
     Google Scholar
  19. Tokars JI, Alter MJ, Miller E, Moyer LA, Favero MS. National Surveillance of Dialysis Associated Diseases in the United States—1994. ASAIO Journal. 1997; 43(1): 108-19.
     Google Scholar
  20. Kuchle C, Fricke H, Held E, Schiffl H. High-flux hemodialysis postpones clinical manifestation of dialysis-related amyloidosis. Am J Nephrol. 1996; 16(6): 484-8.
     Google Scholar
  21. McKane W, Chandna SM, Tattersall JE, Greenwood RN, Farrington K. Identical decline of residual renal function in high-flux biocompatible hemodialysis and CAPD. Kidney Int. 2002; 61(1): 256-65.
     Google Scholar
  22. Goldberg IJ, Kaufman AM, Lavarias VA, Vanni-Reyes T, Levin NW. High flux dialysis membranes improve plasma lipoprotein proffles in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 1996; 11(supp2): 104-7.
     Google Scholar
  23. Robles NR, Murga L, Galvan S, Esparrago JF, Sanchez-Casado E. Hemodialysis with cuprophane or polysulfone: effects on uremic polyneuropathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 1993; 21(3): 282-7.
     Google Scholar
  24. Locatelli F, Mastrangelo F, Redaelli B, Ronco C, Marcelli D, La Greca G, et al. Effects of different membranes and dialysis technologies on patient treatment tolerance and nutritional parameters. The Italian Cooperative Dialysis Study Group. Kidney Int. 1996; 50(4): 1293-302.
     Google Scholar
  25. House AA, Wells GA, Donnelly JG, Nadler SP, Hebert PC. Randomized trial of high-flux vs low-flux haemodialysis: effects on homocysteine and lipids. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000; 15(7): 1029-34.
     Google Scholar
  26. Hoen B, Paul-Dauphin A, Hestin D, Kessler MJJotASoN. EPIBACDIAL: a multicenter prospective study of risk factors for bacteremia in chronic hemodialysis patients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 1998; 9(5): 869-76.
     Google Scholar