Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vinhas, J.
Right arrow Articles by Santos, J. P. d.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vinhas, J.
Right arrow Articles by Santos, J. P. d.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15: 5-8
© 2000 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Editorial Comments

Haemodialyser reuse: facts and fiction

José Vinhas and João Pinto dos Santos

Division of Nephrology, Hospital de S. Bernardo, Setúbal and CHL Centro de Hemodiálise do Lumiar, Lisboa, Portugal

Correspondence and offprint requests to: José Vinhas, MD, ChS, Division of Nephrology, Hospital de S. Bernardo, R. Camilo Castelo Branco, 2910–446 Setúbal, Portugal. E-mail: j.Vinhas@mail.telepac.pt.

High-flux high-price dialysis: is everybody using it?

Since the advent of haemodialysis, the number of patients on haemodialysis has been growing constantly and is now increasing by 7–9% annually. Simultaneously, over the years, there has been a trend towards the use of high-flux dialysers which are much more expensive than cellulosic low-flux dialysers, albeit at different rates in different countries. In the US, the number of patients treated by high-flux dialysis, increased from 5% in 1987 to 31% in 1994. In 1994, the proportion of patients treated by high-efficiency/high-flux dialysis was 57% [1]. In 1996, in Japan, 43.5% of the patients were treated with high-flux dialysis [2]. In Australia, there has also been a movement towards more biocompatible membranes. In 1997, the most common membrane was hemophan®, used by 35% of the patients and only 6% of the patients were treated with high-efficiency/high-flux dialysers, mostly cellulose triacetate [3]. What about Europe? . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Reuse: a solution for the 1990s?

Is dialyser reuse safe?

Facts and fiction

Reuse is associated with an increased incidence of pyrogenic reactions

Polysulfone membranes reprocessed with bleach are associated with increased protein loss

Total cell volume (TCV) reuse criterion is not a well-founded practice

Reuse of dialysers may have an impact on patient outcomes

References


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
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
E. G. Lowrie, Z. Li, N. Ofsthun, and J. M. Lazarus
Reprocessing dialysers for multiple uses: recent analysis of death risks for patients
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2823 - 2830.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]