Search

Background: New versions of the polyester polymer alloy (PEPA) membrane have appeared over the years, with increases in both the pore size and the amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to optimize hydrophilicity performance. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the most recently developed PEPA dialyzer, the FDY series, in hemodialysis (HD) modality in terms of uremic toxin removal and albumin loss and to compare it with that of several high‐flux dialyzers currently used in HD and post‐dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments. Methods: A prospective study was carried out in 21 patients. All patients underwent six dialysis sessions with the same routine dialysis parameters; only the dialyzer and/or the dialysis modality varied: FX80 in HD, FDY 180 in HD, Clearum HS17 in HDF, Elisio 19H in HDF, Vitapes 180 in HDF, and FX80 in post‐dilution HDF. The reduction ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, κFLC, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, α1‐acid glycoprotein, λFLC, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured. Results: Both membranes FDY and FX80 are high‐flux dialyzers and are applied here in high‐flux HD. The average RR of β2‐microglobulin was slightly lower in the two HD treatments than in the HDF treatments. Comparison of dialysis treatments revealed that the PEPA FDY dialyzer in the HD modality was more effective than the FX80 dialyzer in high‐flux HD and was as effective as post‐dilution HDF, especially in terms of myoglobin, κFLC, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, and λFLC RRs. The FDY treatments obtained similar albumin RR in blood and slightly higher dialysate albumin loss, although the values were clinically acceptable. Conclusions: The most recently developed PEPA dialyzers in the HD modality were as effective as all treatments in the HDF modality and were clearly superior to high‐flux helixone HD treatment. These results confirm that this dialyzer should be categorized within the medium cut‐off (MCO) membrane classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The medium cut-off Elisio HX dialyzer by Nipro became commercially available in Europe in 2021, but there are still no reports of in vivo data. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of it compared with previously evaluated hemodialysis (HD), expanded HD (HDx), and postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments. Methods: A prospective study was carried out on 18 patients who underwent 5 dialysis sessions: FX80 Cordiax in HD, Elisio H19 in HD, Elisio HX19 in HDx, Theranova 400 in HDx, and FX80 Cordiax in HDF. The reduction ratios of urea, creatinine, ß2-microglobulin, myoglobin, kappa FLC, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, α1-acid glycoprotein, lambda FLC, and albumin were compared. Dialysate albumin loss was measured. Results: The comparison between the different dialysis modalities revealed no difference for small molecules, but HDx and HDF were significantly more efficient than HD for medium and large molecule removal. The efficacy of Elisio HX19 dialyzer in HDx was similar to the Theranova 400, superior to both dialyzers in HD, and slightly lower than HDF. Albumin losses in dialysate with HD dialyzers were less than 1 g, but between 1.5 and 2.5 g in HDx and HDF. The global removal score (GRS) values with HDx treatments were statistically significantly higher than those with HD. The highest GRS was obtained with the helixone dialyzer in HDF. Conclusions: The new MCO dialyzer, Elisio HX, performs with excellent behavior and tolerance. It represents an upgrade compared to their predecessor and is very close to the removal capacity of HDF treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Clearum dialyzer, built by Medtronic, became commercially available in several European countries in 2020, but there are still no reports of in vivo data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and risk of hypoalbuminemia of this dialyzer compared with previously evaluated hemodialysis (HD), expanded hemodialysis (HDx), and postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments. A prospective study was carried out in 15 patients. Each patient underwent seven dialysis sessions: FX80 Cordiax in HD, Clearum HS17 in HD, Phylther 17‐SD in HDx, Theranova 400 in HDx, Phylther 17‐G in postdilution HDF, Clearum HS17 in postdilution HDF, and FX80 Cordiax in postdilution HDF. The reduction ratios of urea, creatinine, ß2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, α1‐acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured. Comparison of dialysis techniques revealed no differences between small molecules, but HDx and HDF were significantly higher than HD with medium and large molecular weights. The Clearum dialyzer in HDF obtained similar results to FX80 Cordiax in HDF, was slightly superior to Phylther 17‐G in HDF, and was statistically superior to both dialyzers in HDx. Albumin losses with the Clearum dialyzer were among the lowest, both in HD and HDF treatments. The highest global removal score (GRS) values were obtained with the helixone and Clearum dialyzers in HDF, with similar results both in HD and HDF. In addition, the GRS values with HDx treatments were statistically significantly higher than those with HD. The new Clearum dialyzer has excellent behavior and tolerance in HD and HDF. Its adequate permeability has been proven with its maximal performance in HDF, which could represent an upgrade versus its predecessor polyphenylene dialyzers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Toray has created a new generation of dialyzers, the polysulphone (TS) UL series, and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) NF‐U series, which offer enhanced efficacy over the previous TS‐S series and NF‐H series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these dialyzer series versus contrasted expanded hemodialysis (HDx) and postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF). We conducted a prospective study in 12 patients. Each patient underwent six dialysis sessions: FX80 Cordiax in HD, Toraysulfone TS‐1.8 UL in HD, Theranova 400 in HDx, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) NF‐2.1 U in HDF, Toraysulfone TS‐2.1 UL in HDF, and FX80 Cordiax in HDF. The removal ratios (RRs) of urea, creatinine, ß2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, α1‐acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured. The RRs for β2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, and α1‐acid glycoprotein were higher with the TS‐2.1 UL and FX80 Cordiax dialyzers in HDF than those obtained with HD treatments and NF‐2.1 U in HDF. The β2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, and prolactin RRs were also higher with HDx than those obtained with HD treatments. The myoglobin and prolactin RRs were higher with TS‐1.8 UL in HD than those obtained with helixone dialyzers in HD. Dialysate albumin loss was less than 3 g in all situations except in TS‐2.1 UL in HDF. The highest global removal score values were obtained with the TS‐2.1 UL and helixone dialyzers in HDF. Significant differences were found between all study situations. In conclusion, the new generation dialyzers, Toraysulfone TS Series UL and PMMA NF‐U series, show excellent behaviour and tolerance in HD and HDF, representing an upgrade versus their predecessor series. The higher permeability of the TS UL series has been proven with higher efficiency in HD and maximum performance in HDF. The new PMMA NF‐U series allows the use of HDF with good efficiency and complete safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood flow (Qb) is one of the dialysis parameters most strongly influencing the performance of dialysis modalities. However, few studies have compared different dialysis modalities in patients with low Qb. We conducted a prospective, single‐center study in 21 patients. Each patient underwent four dialysis sessions with routine dialysis parameters: high‐flux hemodialysis (HD), predilution hemodiafiltration (pre‐HDF), expanded HD (HDx), and postdilution HDF (post‐HDF). The removal ratios (RR) of urea, creatinine, ß2‐microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1‐microglobulin, free kappa and lambda immunoglobulin light chains (ķFLC and λFLC), α1‐acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. A proportional part of the dialysate was collected to quantify albumin loss. There were no differences in urea and creatinine RRs. The β2‐microglobulin RR was higher in pre‐HDF and post‐HDF. Myoglobin and prolactin RRs were higher with HDx and post‐HDF. The α1‐microglobulin and α1‐acid glycoprotein RRs were significantly higher with post‐HDF than with other treatments, and RRs obtained with HDx were higher than obtained with HD and pre‐HDF. Free ķFLC and λFLC RRs showed the following results in ascending order: HD, pre‐HDF, HDx, and post‐HDF, most of them with statistical significance. Albumin loss varied from 0.45 g with HD to 3.5 g with post‐HDF. The global removal score values were 41.0 ± 4.8% with HD, 44.0 ± 5.2% with pre‐HDF, 49.5 ± 4.6% with HDx, and 54.8 ± 5.3% with post‐HDF, with significant differences between all treatment modalities. In conclusion, this study confirms the superiority of post‐HDF over high‐flux HD, pre‐HDF, and HDx in patients with low Qb. HDx was the closest alternative to post‐HDF and was clearly superior to HD and pre‐HDF. Finally, pre‐HDF was also superior to HD. With this Qb, there was a higher risk of underdialysis, both diffusive and convective, especially in patients with a session duration of less than 5 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A novel class of membranes, medium cut-off (MCO) membranes, has recently been designed to achieve interesting removal capacities for middle and large middle molecules in hemodialysis (HD) treatments. The few studies published to date have reported contradictory results regarding middle-sized molecules when comparing MCO dialyzers versus dialyzers used in online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF). Methods: A prospective, single-center study was carried out in 22 patients. Each patient underwent 9 dialysis sessions with routine dialysis parameters, one with an MCO dialyzer in HD and the other 8 with different dialyzers in OL-HDF. The removal ratio (RR) of urea, creatinine, β2-microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α1-microglobulin, α1-acid glycoprotein, and albumin was intraindividually compared. Albumin loss in dialysate was measured. We propose a global removal score ([ureaRR + β2-microglobulinRR + myoglobinRR + prolactinRR + α1-microglobulinRR + α1-acid glycoproteinRR]/6 – albuminRR) as a new tool for measuring dialyzer effectiveness. Results: No significant differences in the RRs of small and middle molecular range molecules were observed between the MCO vs. OL-HDF dialyzers (range 60–80%). Lower RRs were found for α1-microglobulin and α1-acid glycoprotein without significant differences. The albumin RR was < 11% and dialysate albumin loss was < 3.5 g in all situations without significant differences. The global removal score was 54.9 ± 4.8% with the MCO dialyzer without significant differences. Conclusions: Removal of a wide range of molecular weights, calculated with the proposed global removal score, was almost equal with the MCO dialyzer in HD treatment compared with 8 high-flux dialyzers in high-volume OL-HDF without relevant changes in albumin loss. The global removal score could be a new tool to evaluate the effectiveness of dialyzers and/or different treatment modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]