Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on September 27, 2005

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfi126
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/12/2751    most recent
gfi126v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grooteman, M. P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Nubé, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grooteman, M. P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Nubé, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received April 25, 2005
Accepted August 12, 2005


Original Articles

Patient characteristics rather than the type of dialyser predict the variability of endothelial derived surface molecules in chronic haemodialysis patients

Muriel P. C. Grooteman 1*, Mareille Gritters 2, Inge M. P. M. J. Wauters 3, Casper G. Schalkwijk 4, Frank Stam 5, Jos Twisk 6, Piet M. ter Wee 1, and Menso J. Nubé 7

1 Department of Nephrology, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Institute for Cardiovascular Research VU (ICaR-VU), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Nephrology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands
3 Department of Nephrology, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 Department of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Institute for Cardiovascular Research VU (ICaR-VU), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5 Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Institute for Cardiovascular Research VU (ICaR-VU), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
7 Department of Nephrology, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Institute for Cardiovascular Research VU (ICaR-VU), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Nephrology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Muriel P. C. Grooteman, E-mail: mpc.grooteman{at}vumc.nl



  Abstract

Background. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a frequent complication in chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. Endothelial dysfunction, as measured by soluble cellular adhesion molecules (sCAM) and von Willebrand factor (vWf ) in plasma, is an early manifestation of CVD. Today, it is unknown if, and to what extent, their levels are influenced by the type of dialyser.

Methods. Four dialysers, low-flux cuprammonium (CU); high-flux and low-flux polysulfone and super-flux polyethersulfone, were compared in 15 chronic HD patients in a randomized cross-over fashion. sCAM and vWf were measured at baseline as well as after 4 weeks, and both intra-dialytical and after 24 h (t24 h). Twenty healthy subjects served as controls.

Results. Baseline levels were considerably higher in chronic HD patients than in controls (soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1: sICAM-1 732±216 vs 572±259 ng/ml, P = 0.06; soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1: sVCAM-1 1917±492 vs 1126±338 ng/ml, P<0.001; vWF: 205±55% vs 98±52%, P<0.001). After 4 weeks, no changes were observed. During and after HD, sCAM did not change, except in the case of CU (sICAM-1: 719±259 to 772±261 ng/ml, P = 0.04). CU induced a rise in vWF directly after HD (t4 h; from 188±48% to 255±92%, P<0.01), whereas all modalities induced a significant increase at t24 h (mean 228±54%, P = 0.02). The levels of sCAM and vWf appeared to be dependent on the individual patients rather than on the type of dialyser (explained variance by different patients: 66%-91%, P<0.001; by type of dialyser 0.4-1.2%).

Conclusions. Baseline levels of sCAM and vWf were markedly higher in chronic HD patients than in controls and did not change after 4 weeks with any dialyser. All membranes induced a marked rise in vWf at t24 h, whereas sICAM-1 increased only in the case of CU at t4 h. As sCAM showed no marked changes during HD with any other modality, our study suggests activation of blood cells rather than endothelial cells. As pre-dialysis levels of sCAM and vWf varied noticeably between individual patients, endothelial dysfunction seems to be far more dependent on patient-related factors than on the HD treatment itself.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; endothelial dysfunction; haemodialysis; platelet activation; soluble cellular adhesion molecules; von Willebrand factor.
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
J. Lipid Res.Home page
L. P. van der Zwan, T. Teerlink, J. M. Dekker, R. M. A. Henry, C. D. A. Stehouwer, C. Jakobs, R. J. Heine, and P. G. Scheffer
Circulating oxidized LDL: determinants and association with brachial flow-mediated dilation
J. Lipid Res., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 342 - 349.
[Abstract] [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.