Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15: 1310-1316
© 2000 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association
Special Feature
Improving the outcome of dialysis—opinion vs scientific evidence
Report on the Dialysis Opinion Symposium at the ERA–EDTA Congress, 6 September 1999, Madrid
1 Gambro Research, Lund, Sweden, 2 Universitair Ziekenhuis, Gent, Belgium, 3 Centre de Rein Artificiel de Tassin, Tassin, France, 4 Lecco Hospital, Lecco, Italy, 5 Stichting Dianet Dialysis Centres, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 6 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Hôpitaux de Brabois, Nancy, France, 7 Groupe Hospitalier Pitie-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
Keywords: biocompatible membranes; daily dialysis; dialysis dose; high-flux membranes; home dialysis; self-care dialysis; treatment time
Introduction
Over one million patients are currently maintained on dialysis, a therapy that has been in clinical practice for 30–40 years. Still we cannot say with confidence that we know which treatment-related factors affect the outcome of dialysis. The only parameter so far shown to have a significant impact on survival, and that only up to a certain level, is the clearance index for small solutes, Kt/V [1].
The possible influence of different treatment-related factors on the outcome of dialysis was the topic for the Dialysis Opinion survey in 1998. In connection with the two major nephrology congresses during that year, the ERA–EDTA Congress held in Rimini in June, and the Annual Meeting of the ASN held in Philadelphia in October, a questionnaire was distributed to the participants asking for their opinion on how the outcome of dialysis is affected by dose, time, membrane, frequency, and self-care. The opinion
The dose of haemodialysis
Comments by N. Lameire
The treatment time
Comments by B. Charra
High-flux, biocompatible membranes
Comments by F. Locatelli
Daily dialysis
Comments by M. Kooistra
Home/self-care dialysis
Comments by M. Kessler
What is most important?
Comments by C. Jacobs
Notes
References
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. David, P. Kumpers, G. M. Eisenbach, H. Haller, and J. T. Kielstein Prospective evaluation of an in-centre conversion from conventional haemodialysis to an intensified nocturnal strategy Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 2232 - 2240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Locatelli, U. Buoncristiani, B. Canaud, H. Kohler, T. Petitclerc, and P. Zucchelli Haemodialysis with on-line monitoring equipment: tools or toys? Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 22 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|