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 (43)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gastaldello, K.
Right arrow Articles by Tielemans, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gastaldello, K.
Right arrow Articles by Tielemans, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15: 224-230
© 2000 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Comparison of cellulose diacetate and polysulfone membranes in the outcome of acute renal failure. A prospective randomized study

Karine Gastaldello1, Christian Melot2, Robert-Jean Kahn2, Jean-Louis Vanherweghem1, Jean-Louis Vincent2 and Christian Tielemans1

1 Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation and 2 Department of Intensive Care, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Karine Gastaldello, Department of Nephrology, Hôpital Erasme, 808 Route de Lennik, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Background. Whether the nature of haemodialysis (HD) membranes can influence the outcome of acute renal failure (ARF) remains debatable. Recent studies have suggested that dialysis with bioincompatible unsubstituted cellulosic membranes is associated with a less favourable patient outcome than dialysis with biocompatible synthetic membranes. Since we generally use a modified cellulosic membrane with substantially lower complement- and leukocyte-activating potential than cuprophane, for dialysis of patients with ARF, and because there are no data in the literature regarding the influence of modified cellulosic membranes on the outcome of patients with ARF, we compared the outcome of ARF patients dialysed either with cellulose diacetate or with a synthetic polysulfone membrane. We also investigated the potential role of permeability by comparing membranes with high-flux versus low-flux characteristics.

Methods. This prospective, randomized, single centre study included 159 patients with ARF requiring HD. Patients were stratified according to age, gender, and APACHE II score and then randomized in chronological order to one of three dialysis membranes: low-flux polysulfone, high-flux polysulfone and meltspun cellulose diacetate.

Results. Aetiologies of ARF and the prevalence of oliguria were similarly distributed among the three groups. There was no significant difference between the three groups for survival (multivariate Cox's proportional hazards model, P=0.57), time necessary to recover renal function (P=0.82), and number of dialysis sessions required before recovery (P=0.86). Multivariate analysis showed that survival was significantly influenced only by the severity of the disease state (APACHE III score, P<0.0001), but not by the nature of the dialysis membrane (P=0.57) or the presence of oliguria (P=0.24).

Conclusions. Among patients with ARF requiring HD survival and recovery time are not significantly influenced by the use of either meltspun cellulose diacetate or the more biocompatible high-flux or low-flux polysulfone. Dialysis using modified cellulose membranes is just as effective as dialysis using synthetic polysulfone membranes, but at a lower cost. In addition, the flux of the membrane did not influence patient outcome.

Keywords: acute renal failure; biocompatibility; dialysis membrane; haemodialysis; sepsis; survival


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
JAMAHome page
N. Pannu, S. Klarenbach, N. Wiebe, B. Manns, M. Tonelli, and for the Alberta Kidney Disease Network
Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Acute Renal Failure: A Systematic Review
JAMA, February 20, 2008; 299(7): 793 - 805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
K. C. Cho, J. Himmelfarb, E. Paganini, T. A. Ikizler, S. H. Soroko, R. L. Mehta, and G. M. Chertow
Survival by Dialysis Modality in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Kidney Injury
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., November 1, 2006; 17(11): 3132 - 3138.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
N. Gill, J. V. Nally Jr, and R. A. Fatica
Renal Failure Secondary to Acute Tubular Necrosis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management
Chest, October 1, 2005; 128(4): 2847 - 2863.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Intensive Care MedHome page
G. S. Teehan, O. Liangos, and B. L. Jaber
Update on Dialytic Management of Acute Renal Failure
J Intensive Care Med, May 1, 2003; 18(3): 130 - 138.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
M. L. Esson and R. W. Schrier
Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Tubular Necrosis
Ann Intern Med, November 5, 2002; 137(9): 744 - 752.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Pharmacy PracticeHome page
M. K. Stamatakis
Strategies for Treatment and Prevention of Acute Renal Failure
Journal of Pharmacy Practice, October 1, 2002; 15(5): 392 - 404.
[Abstract] [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.