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 (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bouré, T.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bouré, T.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19: 293-296
© ERA–EDTA 2004; all rights reserved

Editorial Comments

Which dialyser membrane to choose?

Tony Bouré and Raymond Vanholder

University Hospital Ghent, Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology Division, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Raymond Vanholder, University Hospital Ghent, Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology Division, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: raymond.vanholder@ugent.be

Keywords: bioincompatible; cellulose; dialyser; high-flux; low-flux; synthetic

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Introduction

Exchanges through dialyser membranes aim: (i) at the removal of uraemic solutes that are retained because of renal failure (e.g. urea) and (ii) at the restoration of depleted compounds (e.g. bicarbonate).

The originally used cellulosic membranes were derived from cotton and therefore named ‘natural’. They activated complement and leukocytes, inducing an inflammatory reaction as one of the indices of ‘bioincompatibility’ [1]. Later on, chemically developed ‘synthetic’ polymers appeared to mitigate this activation [2]. Furthermore, masking hydroxyl groups, which are responsible for the complement activation with cellulosic membranes, also resulted in more biocompatibility [3]. Therefore, cuprophan and its analogues were called ‘unmodified cellulosic’ vs the more biocompatible, later developed ‘modified/regenerated cellulosic’ membranes.

Many synthetic membranes have large pore sizes allowing higher rates of water flux and permitting a higher ultrafiltration . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Relevant membrane characteristics

Biocompatibility towards leukocytes and the complement system
Impermeability against dialysate impurities
Adsorption
Pore size
Summary
Clinical consequences

Conclusion


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
G. Panzetta, C. Basile, A. Santoro, E. Ancarani, S. Costantini, F. Guarnieri, and G. Verzetti
Diabetics on dialysis in Italy: a nationwide epidemiological study
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 3988 - 3995.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. P. C. Grooteman and M. J. Nube
Impact of the type of dialyser on the clinical outcome in chronic haemodialysis patients: does it really matter?
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2004; 19(12): 2965 - 2970.
[Full Text] [PDF]