The Clinical Experience of Hemodialyzer Reuse / 대한신장학회잡지

The major clinical advantages of dialyzer reuse are improved biocompatibility and a decrease in the frequency of the first use syndrome. Dialyzer reuse has made it possible to use biocompatible high flux membranes of the high price. Although dialyzer reuse in chronic hemodialysis patients is commonly practiced in the United States, it is not widely accepted in Korea. At Ajou University Hospital, we have reprocessed dialyzers since March 2000, and here we report our clinical experience for the 1st 8 weeks. We used high flux dialyzers with reprocessing practice in 24 chronic hemodialysis patients. Dialyzer reprocessing was performed by an automated machine(Renatron) using Renalin. We limited reuse upto 20 times, and we were able to reuse dialyzers upto this number in 17 patients. During the study period, no significant complication was observed as a result of the reuse program. Kt/Vurea and urea reduction ratio(URR) were not different between high and low flux dialyzers(1.41+/-0.29 vs 1.61+/-0.41 for Kt/Vurea and 66.70+/- 6.40% vs 65.69+/-5.63% for URR). In contrast, beta2-microglobulin(beta2M) reduction ratio and clearance were greater in high flux dialyzers than low flux dialyzers(p<0.001, -9.52+/-20.28% vs 42.00+/-8.61% for beta2M reduction ratio and 9.54+/-11.71mL/min vs 48.54+/-14.33mL/min for beta2M clearance). Kt/Vurea, URR, beta2M reduction ratio and beta2M clearance did not deteriorate with the increasing number of reuse. The predialysis values of beta2M decreased by 51% after 19 uses(p<0.001, 37.04+/-13.39 to 18.98+/-3.41mg/L). In summary, during the short pilot study period of 8 weeks, no significant clinical complication was encountered as a result of dialyzer reuse, and our results confirmed the effects of high flux dialyzers on removal of beta2M.

The Clinical Experience of Hemodialyzer Reuse / 대한신장학회잡지

The major clinical advantages of dialyzer reuse are improved biocompatibility and a decrease in the frequency of the first use syndrome. Dialyzer reuse has made it possible to use biocompatible high flux membranes of the high price. Although dialyzer reuse in chronic hemodialysis patients is commonly practiced in the United States, it is not widely accepted in Korea. At Ajou University Hospital, we have reprocessed dialyzers since March 2000, and here we report our clinical experience for the 1st 8 weeks. We used high flux dialyzers with reprocessing practice in 24 chronic hemodialysis patients. Dialyzer reprocessing was performed by an automated machine(Renatron) using Renalin. We limited reuse upto 20 times, and we were able to reuse dialyzers upto this number in 17 patients. During the study period, no significant complication was observed as a result of the reuse program. Kt/Vurea and urea reduction ratio(URR) were not different between high and low flux dialyzers(1.41+/-0.29 vs 1.61+/-0.41 for Kt/Vurea and 66.70+/- 6.40% vs 65.69+/-5.63% for URR). In contrast, beta2-microglobulin(beta2M) reduction ratio and clearance were greater in high flux dialyzers than low flux dialyzers(p<0.001, -9.52+/-20.28% vs 42.00+/-8.61% for beta2M reduction ratio and 9.54+/-11.71mL/min vs 48.54+/-14.33mL/min for beta2M clearance). Kt/Vurea, URR, beta2M reduction ratio and beta2M clearance did not deteriorate with the increasing number of reuse. The predialysis values of beta2M decreased by 51% after 19 uses(p<0.001, 37.04+/-13.39 to 18.98+/-3.41mg/L). In summary, during the short pilot study period of 8 weeks, no significant clinical complication was encountered as a result of dialyzer reuse, and our results confirmed the effects of high flux dialyzers on removal of beta2M.