Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Locatelli, F.
Right arrow Articles by Manzoni, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Locatelli, F.
Right arrow Articles by Manzoni, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15: 29-35
© 2000 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association


Clinical Evaluation and Experience in Treatment Modalities

Treatment modalities in comparison: when do clinical differences emerge?

F. Locatelli and C. Manzoni

Department of Nephrology, Lecco Hospital, Lecco, Italy

Abstract

Background. Despite technological advances in dialysis equipment and modalities, the survival, morbidity and quality of life of uraemic patients undergoing regular haemodialysis treatment are still severely affected by acute intradialysis and long-term complications, possibly related to the treatment itself. Convective treatment modalities, such as haemodiafiltration and haemofiltration, are thought to be further improvements over standard diffusive haemodialysis. Moreover, several of the pathways activated in patients during dialysis have the potential to produce many side-effects. These occur three times a week, and are particularly intense in patients dialysed with so-called ‘bio-incompatible’ membranes. Thus the biocompatibility of dialysis membranes is increasingly recognized as one of the main factors in the improvement of dialysis treatment.

Methods. The main clinical studies to date are reviewed to highlight the clinical effects of different treatment modalities and membranes on the most important acute and long-term haemodialysis-related complications.

Results. Epidemiological studies suggest that semisynthetic and synthetic membranes may reduce morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients. Despite the proven biological superiority of biocompatible membranes, we lack definitive evidence that thrice-weekly complement and cell activation over a period of years is detrimental to patients, because the results of prospective randomized studies are conflicting. However, it is important to remember that factors other than the dialysis membrane could influence the ‘biocompatibility’ of dialysis, including the dialysate, dialyser geometry, the distribution of blood in the dialyser, reuse, the sterilizant and materials used in reprocessing.

Conclusions. Further large-scale prospective and randomized trials with a long follow-up are needed in order to better clarify the clinical effect of different treatment modalities on the morbidity and mortality of patients on chronic renal replacement therapy. In particular, it must be clarified whether the possible clinical differences in treatment modalities are based on differences in the clearance of middle molecules or on biocompatibility, or, more generally, on the increasingly recognized clinical importance of high-flux treatments, and the possible interaction between membrane flux and biocompatibility.

Notes

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Professor Francesco Locatelli, MD, Nephrology Department, Lecco Hospital, Via Ghislanzoni, 22, 23900 Lecco, Italy.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J Trop Med HygHome page
K. Tolentino and J. F. Friedman
An Update on Anemia in Less Developed Countries
Am J Trop Med Hyg, July 1, 2007; 77(1): 44 - 51.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
L. E Murray-Kolb and J. L Beard
Iron treatment normalizes cognitive functioning in young women
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2007; 85(3): 778 - 787.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
V. E. Andreucci, D. N. S. Kerr, and J. D. Kopple
Rights of chronic renal failure patients undergoing chronic dialysis therapy
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., January 1, 2004; 19(1): 30 - 38.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
M. S. Gordon
Managing Anemia in the Cancer Patient: Old Problems, Future Solutions
Oncologist, August 1, 2002; 7(4): 331 - 341.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
G. Lonnemann and K. M. Koch
{beta}2-Microglobulin Amyloidosis: Effects of Ultrapure Dialysate and Type of Dialyzer Membrane
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2002; 13(90001): S72 - 77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
I. Ledebo, N. Lameire, B. Charra, F. Locatelli, M. Kooistra, M. Kessler, and C. Jacobs
Improving the outcome of dialysis--opinion vs scientific evidence
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2000; 15(9): 1310 - 1316.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.