Comparison of cellulose diacetate and polysulfone membranes in the outcome of acute renal failure. A prospective randomized study. Effects of different membranes and dialysis technologies on patient treatment tolerance and nutritional parameters. The Italian Cooperative Dialysis Study Group. Biocompatibility and performance of a modified cellulosic and a synthetic high flux dialyzer. A randomized crossover comparison between cellulose triacetate and polysulphon. Tolerance of hemodialysis: a randomized prospective trial of high-flux versus conventional high-efficiency hemodialysis. Patient survival and renal recovery in acute renal failure: randomized comparison of cellulose acetate and polysulfone membrane dialyzers. Biocompatible membranes preserve residual renal function in patients undergoing regular hemodialysis. Preservation of residual renal function in dialysis patients: effects of dialysis-technique-related factors. Biocompatible membranes in acute renal failure: prospective case-controlled study. A multicenter comparison of dialysis membranes in the treatment of acute renal failure requiring dialysis. Acute intradialytic well-being: results of a clinical trial comparing polysulfone with cuprophan. Bergamo Collaborative Dialysis Study Group. Biocompatible membranes do not promote graft recovery following cadaveric renal transplantation. Effect of high-flux hemodialysis on quality of life and neuropsychological function in chronic hemodialysis patients. Low-flux versus high-flux synthetic dialysis membrane in acute renal failure: prospective randomized study. Haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility and mortality of patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure: a prospective randomised multicentre trial. International Multicentre Study Group. Biocompatible dialysis membranes and acute renal failure: a study in post-operative acute tubular necrosis in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Is the choice of membrane important for patients with acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis? Do high-flux dialysis membranes affect renal dyslipidemia? High-flux dialysis membranes improve lipid profile in chronic hemodialysis patients. Effect of membrane permeability on survival of hemodialysis patients. Removal of silicon, aluminum and beta 2-microglobulin in chronic haemodialysis patients. Effect of membrane permeability on inflammation and arterial stiffness: a randomized trial. Influence of dialysate and membrane biocompatibility on hemodynamic stability in hemodialysis. On-line haemodiafiltration versus low-flux haemodialysis. A prospective randomized study. High flux dialysis membranes improve plasma lipoprotein profiles in patients with end-stage renal disease. Enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration with titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in the treatment of infrabony defects: a comparative controlled clinical trial.
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.
                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.
                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).
                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. There is increasing evidence that the biochemical and cellular phenomena induced by blood/ membrane/dialysate interactions contribute to dialysis-related intradialytic and long-term complications. However, there is a lack of large, prospective, randomized trials comparing biocompatible and bioincompatible membranes, and convective and diffusive treatment modalities. The primary aim of this prospective, randomized trial was to evaluate whether the use of polysulfone membrane with bicarbonate dialysate offers any advantage (in terms of treatment tolerance, nutritional parameters and pre-treatment beta-microglobulin levels) over a traditional membrane (Cuprophan). A secondary aim was to assess whether the use of more sophisticated methods consisting of a biocompatible synthetic membrane with different hydraulic permeability at different ultrafiltration rate (high-flux hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration) offers any further advantages. Seventy-one Centers were involved and stratified according to the availability of only the first two or all four of the following techniques: Cuprophan hemodialysis (Cu-HD), low-flux polysulfone hemodialysis (LfPS-HD), high-flux polysulfone high-flux hemodialysis (HfPS-HD), and high-flux polysulfone hemodiafiltration (HfPS-HDF). The 380 eligible patients were randomized to one of the two or four treatments (132 to Cu-HD, 147 to LfPS-HD, 51 to HfPS-HD and 50 to HfPS-HDF). The follow-up was 24 months. No statistical difference was observed in the algebraic sum of the end points between bicarbonate dialysis with Cuprophan or with low-flux polysulfone, or among the four dialysis methods under evaluation. There was a significant decrease in pre-dialysis plasma beta 2-microglobulin levels in high-flux dialysis of 9.04 +/- 10.46 mg/liter (23%) and in hemodiafiltration of 6.35 +/- 12.28 mg/liter (16%), both using high-flux polysulfone membrane in comparison with Cuprophan and low-flux polysulfone membranes (P = 0.032). The significant decrease in pre-dialysis plasma beta 2-microglobulin levels could have a clinical impact when one considers that beta 2-microglobulin accumulation and amyloidosis are important long-term dialysis-related complications. The biocompatibility and performance of two high flux membranes (modified cellulosic: cellulose-triacetate (CTA), and a synthetic material: polysulphon [PS]) were assessed in 31 stable patients on hemodialysis (HD) in a randomized crossover study. Parameters evaluated included leukocytes, complement activation products C3a and C5a, cytokines, lymphocyte subpopulations, urea, creatinine, phosphate, and beta 2 microglobulin. Considering biocompatibility, the drop in the number of leukocytes was more pronounced during CTA HD compared with PS (p = 0.045), although both were low in comparison with cuprammonium dialysis in the same patients, as observed during a separate study. Both membranes induced a low and transient state of complement activation. Interleukin 1 beta and interleukin 6 could not be detected at all, whereas tumor necrosis factor alpha levels were marginally elevated before and after HD with both membranes. During the first 30 min of HD with either membrane, the numbers of CD8+ cells decreased significantly, resulting in an increase in the CD4/CD8 ratios; in addition, the number of NK cells decreased. Performance, as measured by extraction ratios for small molecular weight solutes and Kt/V urea, was significantly better during CTA dialysis (p < 0.001), but almost similar after correction for membrane surface area. On the basis of these data, it seems justified to conclude that, whereas biocompatibility of the PS dialyzer appeared slightly superior to CTA, performance of both dialyzers was comparable. Hemodialysis is frequently complicated by hypotension and associated symptoms. It has been suggested that these symptoms may be related to the biochemical changes caused by cellulosic dialysis membranes. In this study, a prospective randomized crossover trial was conducted comparing the incidence of hypotension and acute symptoms during dialysis with large-surface-area (1.6 m2) cellulosic (cuprophane [CUP]) and noncellulosic (polyacrylonitrile [PAN], AN69) membranes. Dialyzers were used for a single use only. There was no difference in predialysis BUN, predialysis blood pressure, intradialytic weight gain, blood flow, dialysis efficiency (urea reduction), dialysis duration, hematocrit, or erythropoietin dose between the two study phases. When these clinical characteristics were matched, there was no difference in the number of episodes of hypotension (CUP, 19 +/- 3; PAN, 22 +/- 3; P = not significant [NS]). The incidence of symptomatic hypotension, as reflected by the number of episodes of hypotension requiring more than 100 mL of saline for correction, was also not different between study phases (CUP, 10 +/- 1; AN69, 11 +/- 2; P = NS). The incidence of intradialytic symptoms, including emesis, cramping, headache, angina, pruritus, and bronchospasm, was similar during the two study phases (CUP, 11 +/- 2; AN69, 10 +/- 1; P = NS). It was concluded that noncellulosic membranes do not offer any significant advantage over cellulosic membranes in reducing the acute complications of hemodialysis. To investigate survival and renal recovery after dialysis in patients with acute renal failure with use of synthetic membranes compared with substituted cellulose membranes.
                We prospectively studied survival and recovery of renal function of 66 patients with acute renal failure who required intermittent hemodialysis. Patients were randomized to exclusive treatment with either cellulose acetate (CA) or polysulfone (PS) hemodialysis membranes. Additionally, markers of biocompatibility (complement, leukocyte counts, cytokine concentration) were measured at initiation and 1 hour after initiation of dialysis among 10 patients equally distributed between the CA and PS groups.
                The cohorts were indistinguishable with respect to age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, percentage in the intensive care unit (ICU), and adequacy of dialysis. Survival (76% CA, 73% PS; P=.78) and recovery of renal function at 30 days (58% CA, 39% PS; P=.14) were not statistically different in the 2 groups. Among 26 CA patients and 27 PS patients treated in the ICU, survival was not statistically different (73% CA, 67% PS; P=.61); however, the proportion of patients recovering renal function suggested a benefit favoring CA membranes (65% CA, 37% PS; P=.04). Additionally, markers of biocompatibility were not significantly different between groups among the 10 patients equally distributed between the CA and PS groups.
                Overall clinical outcomes among patients with acute renal failure treated with CA hemodialysis membranes and those treated with PS membranes were not significantly different. The observed advantage favoring renal recovery among this ICU population treated with CA hemodialysis membranes warrants further investigation. Initiation of hemodialysis causes a further decrease of residual renal function (RRF). To assess the impact of the biocompatibility of the dialysis membrane, we performed a prospective randomized investigation in 20 normotensive patients with tubulointerstitial nephritis. The patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either a high-flux polysulfone or cellulose membrane over a period of 12 months. RRF, defined by creatinine clearance and daily urine volume, was found to decrease in both groups of patients after the initiation of hemodialysis. Of the two membranes used, however, the cellulose membrane caused an accelerated decrease of RRF (P < 0.05). The better maintenance of RRF in patients treated with polysulfone membranes was associated with higher Kt/V values and increased hematocrit values (P < 0.05). The pathophysiologic mechanism underlying the more rapid decline of RRF could not be explained by intradialytic hypotension, but may be related to the nephrotoxic effects of inflammatory mediators due to bioincompatibility. Therefore, the use of polysulfone membranes might be preferable in patients with relevant RRF. Residual renal function (RRF) is of paramount importance to dialysis adequacy, morbidity, and mortality, particularly for long-term continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients. Residual renal function seems to be better preserved in patients on CAPD than in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We analyzed RRF in 45 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), commencing either CAPD or HD, to prospectively define the time course of the decline in RRF, and to evaluate dialysis-technique-related factors such as cardiovascular stability and bioincompatibility.
                Single-center prospective investigation in parallel design with matched pairs.
                Fifteen patients starting CAPD and 15 matched pairs of patients commencing HD were matched according to cause of renal failure and RRF. Hemodialysis patients were assigned to two dialyzer membranes differing markedly in their potential to activate complement and cells (bioincompatibility). Fifteen patients were treated exclusively with the cuprophane membrane (bioincompatible) and the other 15 patients received HD with the high-flux polysulfone membrane (biocompatible).
                Residual renal function was determined at initiation of dialytic therapy and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Dry weight (by chest x ray and diameter of the vena cava) was closely recorded throughout the study, and the number of hypotensive episodes counted.
                Residual renal function declined in both CAPD and HD patients, although this decline was faster in HD patients (2.8 mL/minute after 6 months and 3.7 mL/min after 12 months) than in CAPD patients (0.6 mL/min and 1.4 mL/min after 6 and 12 months respectively). It declined faster in patients with bioincompatible than with biocompatible HD membranes (3.6 mL/min vs 1.9 mL/min after 6 months). Eleven percent of the HD sessions were complicated by clinically relevant blood pressure reductions, but there were no differences between the two dialyzer membrane groups. None of the CAPD patients had documented hypotensive episodes. None of the study patients suffered severe illness or received nephrotoxic antibiotics or radiocontrast media.
                The better preservation of RRF in stable CAPD patients corresponded with greater cardiovascular stability compared to HD patients, independently of the membrane used. Furthermore, there was a significantly higher preservation of RRF in HD patients on polysulfone versus cuprophane membranes, indicating an additional effect of biocompatibility, such as less generation of nephrotoxic substances by the membrane. Thus, starting ESRD patients on HD prior to elective CAPD should be avoided for better preservation of RRF. The mortality of critically ill patients with acute renal failure has been halved through intervention by haemodialysis. However, several reports suggest that the course of the disorder may be prolonged by this procedure. Our prospective randomised study was done to see whether the generation of inflammatory mediators by bio-compatible membranes has an adverse effect on the outcome of acute renal failure. 52 patients, similar in age, severity of acute renal failure, general disease status (APACHE II), and management of acute renal failure or its related conditions, were divided into two groups. Haemodialysis was done with cuprophane or polyacrylonitrile membranes. Cuprophane membranes induced intense activation of the complement system (as judged by measurement of C3a) and lipooxygenase pathway (leukotriene B4) resulting in alterations of neutrophil kinetics and function. The cuprophane group had a lower survival rate (38 vs 65%), a higher proportion of patients dying from sepsis (71 vs 40%), required more haemodialysis sessions (12 vs 9), and demonstrated delayed resolution and recovery from acute renal failure than the polyacrylonitrile group. The difference in mortality regarding lethal sepsis as cause of death was statistically significant. Our observations indicate that the outcome of critically ill patients with acute renal failure may be influenced by bio-incompatibility reactions to the dialysis membrane. These results have direct implications for such patients on haemodialysis. The mortality of patients with acute renal failure (ARF) remains high, and in several large studies approaches 60%. This mortality is particularly high in patients with ARF who require dialysis and has not changed substantially over several years, despite the introduction of major advances in monitoring and treatment. Increasing prevalence of comorbidities has been suggested as the major factor in this persistently high mortality. This study investigates the potential role of the dialysis membrane on patient outcome in a prospective multicenter study of 153 patients with ARF requiring dialysis. The membrane assignment was made in alternating order and was limited to membranes with low complement activation (Biocompatible [BCM]) and cellulosic, high complement activation (Bioincompatible [BICM]). Both types of membranes were low-flux membranes. Patients were dialyzed with the assigned membrane until recovery, discharge from hospital, or death. The severity of illness of each patient was assessed using the APACHE II score at the time of initiation of dialysis. A logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for the APACHE II score. The results of the study showed a statistically significant difference in survival (57% in patients on BCM, 46% in patients on BICM; P = 0.03) and in recovery of renal function (64% in patients on BICM and 43% in patients on BICM; P = 0.001). These differences were particularly marked in the patients who were nonoliguric (>400 ml/d of urine output) at initiation of the study. In the subset of patients who were nonoliguric at the start of dialysis, a larger fraction (70%) became oliguric after initiating dialysis on a BICM membrane, in contrast to 44% who were initiated on a BCM membrane (P = 0.03). It is concluded that the biocompatibility of the dialysis membrane plays a role in the outcome of patients with ARF, particularly those who are nonoliguric at the time of initiation of dialysis. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to compare the effects of a synthetic, high-flux polysulfone membrane with a standard cuprophan one on acute clinical complications during a diffusive dialysis procedure. The principal end-point, that is, the number of hypotensive episodes, was similar in polysulfone (39; 23.8%) and cuprophan (32; 19.5%). Likewise, no significant difference was found between the two membranes as far as the secondary end-point was concerned, that is, the effect on headache, nausea, pruritus and sense of well-being. We conclude that high-flux polysulfone, acutely used in standard diffusive dialysis, has no favorable influence on hypotensive episodes and does not affect some typical dialysis-related symptoms any differently from cuprophan membrane. The need is stressed for well-controlled studies specifically designed to assess the worth of new dialysis techniques and materials that may vastly raise the cost of dialysis treatment. Controversy surrounds the role of biocompatible membrane dialyzers in treatment of acute renal failure. Studies that have shown a benefit have involved critically ill patients where renal recovery and patient mortality are influenced by other comorbid disease. The aim of the present work is to clarify this issue in a more homogeneous population of patients with acute renal failure following cadaveric renal transplantation.
                All patients with delayed graft function between January 1996 and February 1998 were randomized to receive either a biocompatible (BCM, polysulfone) membrane or bioincompatible (BICM, cuprophane) membrane for dialysis until onset of graft function.
                Forty-one patients were randomized, 23 to receive BCM and 18 BICM. Five patients (2 BCM, 3 BICM; p = NS) with primary non-function of graft were excluded from analysis, leaving 36 cases of acute tubular necrosis (ATN). Patient and donor characteristics were similar in both groups. The BCM group had significantly longer periods of dialysis dependency compared to the BICM group (14 vs 10 days; p = 0.03). There was a tendency towards higher serum creatinine levels in the short term in the BCM group (318 vs 164 micromol/l at 1 month (p = 0.1), 190 vs 169 micromol/l at latest visit (p = 0.07)) and a greater number of acute rejection episodes in the BCM group (3.7 vs 1.7 episodes per 100 days of dialysis dependency, p = 0.1). With an intention-to-treat analysis of all 41 patients originally randomized, there was no significant difference in time to graft recovery between the 2 groups (p = 0.18).
                In the setting of ARF posttransplantation, we have found no evidence to support the use of biocompatible membranes for dialysis. Rather, our study provides argument against a large benefit for the use of BCM in the recovery of ARF, as suggested by earlier studies. The objective was to evaluate the effect of high-flux hemodialysis on quality of life, intra- and interdialytic symptoms and neuropsychological function. The study was double-blind single cross-over with random allocation to order of treatment. The patients were stable adult hospital hemodialysis patients. Both the conventional and high-flux membranes were cellulose acetate, the dialysate was bicarbonate, and dialysate sodium was held constant. The high-flux membrane had an ultrafiltration rate of 15 ml/h/mm Hg transmembrane pressure, a B12 clearance of 88 ml/min and a beta 2-microglobulin clearance of 11.4 ml/min. The values of the conventional membrane were 3.5-5.0, 34-45 and negligible. Each treatment period was 4 months. Twenty-two patients completed both phases of the cross-over. The KT/V value was higher during high-flux than conventional treatment; 1.42 versus 1.27(p < 0.05). There were no differences between high-flux and conventional treatment with respect to quality of life. Symptoms during dialysis were less severe during high-flux than conventional treatment for 12/14 items. Only 3 items reached statistical significance (0.05 > p > 0.01) and none were clinically significant. Symptoms between dialyses were less severe during high-flux than conventional treatment for 18/20 items. No single item had a statistically significant improvement but 3 had clinically important improvement. Among the 23 neuropsychological variables, none demonstrated statistically significant changes. The influence of dialyzer membrane on the morbidity and mortality of patients with acute renal failure remains a matter of debate. The aim of the prospective randomized clinical study was to assess the influence of the flux of a synthetic dialyzer membrane on patients' survival rate, restitution of renal function, and duration of hemodialysis treatment of patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure. Seventy-two patients treated in intensive care units of the University Medical Center Ljubljana were randomized according to the dialyzer used throughout the duration of hemodialysis treatment. There were 38 patients in the low-flux group (dialyzer F6, low-flux polysuphone, Fresenius, Bad Homburg, Germany) and 34 patients in the high-flux group (dialyzer Filtral 12, sulphonated high-flux polyacrylonitrile, Hospal, Industrie Meyzieu, France). Both groups were balanced in terms of sex, age, APACHE II score, oliguria before dialysis, cause of acute renal failure, inotropic support, mechanical ventilation, and the number of failing organs. The patients' survival rate was 18.7% in the low-flux group and 20.6% in the high-flux group. Ten patients (26.3%) recovered their renal function in the low-flux group and 8 (23.5%) in the high-flux group. Hemodialysis treatment lasted 11.2 days in the low-flux and 10.7 days in the high-flux group. An analysis of subgroups with a lower mortality rate (subgroup of patients without oliguria and subgroup of patients with less than 4 failed organ systems) did not show significant differences between the low-flux and high-flux groups in terms of survival rate, recovery of renal function, and duration of hemodialysis treatment. In conclusion, no significant differences were found in the results of low-flux versus high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzer treatment in patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure in terms of survival rate, recovery of renal function, incidence of oliguria during hemodialysis, and duration of hemodialysis treatment. The number of failing organs seems to be the most important single factor determining the survival of patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure. There is controversy as to whether haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility (ie, the potential to activate complement and neutrophils) influences mortality of patients with acute renal failure. We did a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure treated with two different types of low-flux membrane.
                180 patients with acute renal failure were randomly assigned bioincompatible Cuprophan (n=90) or polymethyl-methacrylate (n=90) membranes. The main outcome was survival 14 days after the end of therapy (treatment success). Odds ratios for survival were calculated and the two groups were compared by Fisher's exact test. Analyses were based on patients treated according to protocol (76 Cuprophan, 84 polymethyl methacrylate).
                At the start of dialysis, the groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, severity of illness (as calculated by APACHE II scores), prevalence of oliguria, or biochemical measures of acute renal failure. 44 patients (58% [95% CI 46-69]) assigned Cuprophan membranes and 50 patients (60% [48-70]) assigned polymethyl-methacrylate membranes survived. The odds ratio for treatment failure on Cuprophan compared with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was 1.07 (0.54-2.11; p=0.87). No difference between Cuprophan and polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was detected when the analysis was adjusted for age and APACHE II score. 18 patients in the Cuprophan group and 20 in the polymethyl-methacrylate group had clinical complications of therapy (mainly hypotension).
                There were no differences in outcome for patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure between those treated with Cuprophan membranes and those treated with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes. Previous experimental and human data suggests a detrimental effect on the course of acute renal failure related to exposure of blood to artificial dialysis membranes of poor biocompatibility. We performed a 2.5-year prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical course of acute renal failure (post-operative ischemic acute tubular necrosis, ATN) in patients receiving a cadaveric renal transplant requiring supportive hemodialysis in the immediate post-transplant setting. Patients were randomized to either a cuprophane or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) conventional hollow fiber dialyzer. All patients received a standard immunosuppressive regimen which included induction therapy with either horse anti-thymocyte gamma globulin (ATGAM) or the murine anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody (OKT3). Of 53 patients randomized, 17 were excluded (2 for intervening biopsy-proven rejection prior to recovery from ATN, 10 for primary graft nonfunction and 5 for other reasons), leaving 36 evaluable cases of uncomplicated ATN, 18 in each group. There was no difference by age, race, gender, cause of ESRD, immunosuppressive regimen, cold or warm ischemia time, use of pre-transplant dialysis, percent oliguria or the incidence of intra-dialytic hypotension between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the mean time to recovery from ATN posttransplant (8.9 days in the cuprophane group vs 9.5 days in the PMMA group, p = NS) or in the average number of hemodialysis treatments required (3.6 in both groups, p = NS). There was also no difference in long term allograft outcome in terms of the nadir serum creatinine, the number of episodes of subsequent acute rejection or in the development of chronic rejection. An intent-to-treat analysis of all 53 originally randomized patients similarly yielded no significant differences. A subsequent, non-randomized study using a membrane of intermediate biocompatibility (Hemophan) also showed no difference in recovery time from ATN. Bioincompatible membranes do not seem to have a significant clinical impact on the course of recovery of this form of acute renal failure. The striking benefits of biocompatibility in the course of ARF seen in other human trials may relate more to the non-renal systemic toxic effects of bioincompatibility. It has recently been reported that patients with acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis have an improved recovery of renal function and a higher survival rate when the dialysis treatments are performed with a biocompatible membrane rather than a bioincompatible membrane. Our data, obtained in 57 patients with acute renal failure, do not support these findings since neither the mortality nor the required number of dialysis sessions could be influenced by using a biocompatible membrane. The survival rate was similar in both groups (64 versus 72%), and renal function was regained in both groups after 6 dialysis sessions. We conclude that when reviewing the literature as well as other factors, the underlying clinical condition or the skill of the physicians is probably more important than the theoretical superiority of biocompatible membranes. High-flux hemodialysis has been reported to attenuate renal dyslipidemia. To evaluate the contribution of dialysis membrane composition per se, we compared the impact on the lipoprotein profile of hemodialysis (HD) with a conventional cellulose dialysis membrane with that of a synthetic high-flux dialysis membrane in standard hemodialysis mode. Forty-two patients (24 men, 18 women; mean age, 69 years; range, 39-85 years) on maintenance HD with cellulosic dialysis membranes were randomized and stratified for diabetes mellitus to 12 weeks of HD treatment with either a cellulose acetate (CA; n = 23) or polyacrylonitrile (AN69; n = 19) membrane. HD was performed in a conventional low-flux standard HD mode 4-6 hours/session. Plasma levels of lipids (TC, TG), apolipoproteins (A-I, B, C-III, E), lipoprotein (a) (Ip(a)), and individual apoA and apoB containing lipoproteins (LP-A-I, LP-A-I:A-II, LP-B, LP-Bc) were determined. At baseline, the AN69 group had slightly higher plasma concentrations of apoC-III and C-III/HS, but there were no other differences at entry in study variables between the treatment groups. Twelve week treatment with an AN69 membrane did not result in any significant changes in lipoprotein profile compared with treatment with a cellulose acetate membrane. HD with AN69 dialysis membranes in the conventional low-flux standard hemodialysis mode does not affect the lipoprotein profile. In a controlled prospective trial, the effect of a switch from cellulose-based, low-flux dialysis membranes to polysulphone, high-flux membranes on lipid parameters was evaluated. Baseline values of lipid parameters were identical in the study group and the control group in which the dialysis membrane remained unchanged. After 6 wk, total triglyceride, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglyceride, and VLDL cholesterol decreased, respectively, 28 +/- 17 (P < 0.01), 38 +/- 17 (P < 0.01), and 24 +/- 21% (P < 0.05), and the proportion of total cholesterol that was high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased from 15 +/- 5 to 18 +/- 5% (P < 0.05) in the high-flux polysulphone group, whereas these variables remained unchanged in the control group. Low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol as well as Kt/V, protein catabolic rate, parathyroid hormone, albumin, and body weight did not change. No change in lipoprotein lipase activity was found. In a second study, the effects of a single hemodialysis session with high-flux polysulphone and low-flux, cellulose-based membranes on lipid parameters and lipolytic activity were compared in a cross-over fashion. Treatment with both membranes resulted in a significant decrease in plasma triglyceride, VLDL triglyceride, and VLDL cholesterol. Lipoprotein lipase activity increased during hemodialysis. Changes in lipid parameters and lipolytic activity were identical during the two treatments. The effect of high-flux hemodialysis membranes on patient survival has not been unequivocally determined. In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 738 incident hemodialysis patients, stratified them by serum albumin < or = 4 and >4 g/dl, and assigned them to either low-flux or high-flux membranes. We followed patients for 3 to 7.5 yr. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no significant difference between high-flux and low-flux membranes, and a Cox proportional hazards model concurred. Patients with serum albumin < or = 4 g/dl had significantly higher survival rates in the high-flux group compared with the low-flux group (P = 0.032). In addition, a secondary analysis revealed that high-flux membranes may significantly improve survival of patients with diabetes. Among those with serum albumin < or = 4 g/dl, slightly different effects among patients with and without diabetes suggested a potential interaction between diabetes status and low serum albumin in the reduction of risk conferred by high-flux membranes. In summary, we did not detect a significant survival benefit with either high-flux or low-flux membranes in the population overall, but the use of high-flux membranes conferred a significant survival benefit among patients with serum albumin < or = 4 g/dl. The apparent survival benefit among patients who have diabetes and are treated with high-flux membranes requires confirmation given the post hoc nature of our analysis. One hundred outpatients on chronic haemodialysis with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) membrane dialyzer were randomly chosen. A control group of 100 likewise randomly chosen outpatients were treated with cuprophane membrane dialyzer. In both groups the treatments lasted for one year. Comparison of the test results revealed that Si, Al and beta 2-M.G levels could be reduced in patients on chronic HD with PMMA. Both larger molecule removal and dialyzer biocompatibility have been implicated in the high-flux hemodialysis (HD)-associated favorable outcome. In an attempt to delineate the effect of membrane permeability, we performed a randomized, crossover study to compare the inflammatory biomarkers, lipid profile, and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) of two dialyzers that are composed of identical membranes but with different flux characteristics.
                Stable patients who had anuria and were on low-flux polysulfone membrane were randomly allocated either to HD with high-flux polyamide membrane (group A; 22 patients) or to HD with low-flux polyamide membrane (group B; 24 patients) for 24 weeks, then they were started on 24 weeks of the alternative HD treatment. Apart from the dialyzer, the dialysis prescription remained unchanged.
                Nineteen patients from group A and 23 patients from group B completed the study. Predialysis beta(2)-microglobulin levels decreased significantly when using the high-flux polyamide membrane. No difference between membranes was observed for serum albumin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, IL-6, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) during the study. A significant increase in aortic PWV, a marker of aortic stiffness, was noted after patients switched from high-flux to low-flux polyamide membranes. Similarly, the rate of change in aortic PWV was significantly decreased with the use of the high-flux polyamide membrane.
                Our findings suggest that dialysis with polyamide membranes with different flux characteristics did not modify the inflammatory indices and lipid profile in stable HD patients; however, a seemingly beneficial effect on aortic stiffness was noted for patients who were maintained on high-flux polyamide membrane. The contributions of membrane biocompatibility, dialysate temperature and sodium concentration to hemodynamic stability during hemodialysis were studied in 8 patients with a high incidence of hemodialysis-induced symptomatic hypotension. Patients were treated during 8 different periods, randomly ordered in each case, resulting from the combination of the following: the membrane, either Cuprophan or Polyacrylonitrile; the dialysate temperature, 37 or 35 degrees C, and the sodium concentration, 133 or 139 mmol/l. The incidence of symptomatic hypotension was lower at 35 degrees C in the entire study with either membrane and either sodium concentration. It was also lower with a sodium concentration of 139 mmol/l with either temperature and either membrane. There was a lower incidence of symptomatic hypotension when using Polyacrylonitrile, but this difference was not significant. We conclude that changes in physicochemical parameters of dialysate lead to worth-while improvement of symptomatic hypotension in hemodialysis patients, but membrane biocompatibility seems to play a minor role. Current methods of renal replacement therapy lead only to an insignificant removal of larger, potentially toxic, substances, which are excreted by healthy kidneys. On-line preparation of substituate from dialysate and the use of high-flux membranes allow substantial convective removal of such substances. A modified on-line haemodiafiltration method with the use of a large membrane surface and a high convective part was chosen to test whether the elimination of larger substances, such as low-molecular-mass proteins, has a clinical impact.
                In a prospective, controlled study over 24 months, 44 unselected chronic dialysis patients were randomized to undergo either low-flux haemodialysis (HD; n = 21) or haemodiafiltration (HDF; n = 23). To eliminate confounding factors, low-molecular efficacy was matched (Kt/V 1.8), and the same membrane material (polysulfone), ultrapure dialysate and the same treatment duration (4.5 h) were applied to each group.
                Morbidity, mortality, blood pressure, dialysis-associated hypotensive episodes, haematocrit and erythropoietin dose did not differ between the groups. The same was true for body weight and, accordingly, bioimpedance values, clinical hydration score, skinfold thickness, plasma albumin, prealbumin and transferrin. beta2-Microglobulin in the plasma did not change in the HD group and varied between 32 and 43 mg/l throughout the 2 years. In HDF, beta2 microglobulin decreased from similar values to 18 mg/l predialysis (P<0.01) in the first 6 months of HDF treatment and then remained constant during the remaining 18 months.
                In the absence of any clinical marker of uraemic toxicity the removal of larger molecules over the time-span of 2 years during HDF had no clinical implication compared with extremely (and for routine practice unrealistically) well-dialysed patients with low-flux HD. In the absence of any side-effects of on-line HDF and supposing that plasma beta2-microglobulin is a marker of morbidity, on-line HDF ensures an excellent dialysis quality which apparently takes time to translate into measurable clinical sequelae. A major cause of the morbidity and mortality of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to disorders of large blood vessels, especially coronary heart disease. Atherosclerosis, the most common form of this disease, is known to result from abnormalities in plasma lipoproteins, as well as from factors that damage the vessel wall. Two well-known risk factors for coronary heart disease are elevated plasma concentrations of LDL and reduced concentrations of HDL. This latter disorder is often accompanied by elevated triglycerides. Low HDL and elevated triglycerides are commonly associated with ESRD. Dialysis with high flux membranes differs from conventional dialysis in a number of ways. These include better biocompatibility and increased flux of larger molecules. Although several previous studies had suggested that dialysis with high flux membranes improves plasma lipoprotein profiles, a definitive cross-over designed study to assess the roles of high flux versus biocompatibility in altering lipoprotein profiles had not been done. Preliminary data from such a study are presented. These data confirm the beneficial effects of high flux membranes to reduce plasma triglycerides and suggest that this effect is primarily due to the high flux, and not the biocompatible, feature of the membranes. Several studies have documented the clinical efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes and enamel matrix proteins (EMP) in the treatment of infrabony defects. The objective of this controlled clinical study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 3 surgical modalities in the treatment of deep interproximal infrabony defects.
                Ninety (90) defects in 90 healthy subjects affected by chronic periodontitis were assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups by blocking to prognostic variables. The test group was treated with the application of EMP and the simplified papilla preservation (SPP) technique; the second group was treated with titanium-reinforced ePFTE membranes and the SPP technique; and the third group was treated with the SPP technique used as access flap control procedure. No differences were observed in terms of baseline oral hygiene and defect characteristics among the 3 groups, indicating that the blocking approach was effective. A stringent infection control program was adopted for 1 year.
                The 1-year results indicated that: 1) all treatment modalities resulted in clinically significant improvements in clinical attachment levels (CAL) and reduction in probing depth (PD); 2) a statistically significant treatment effect was demonstrated comparing the EMP test, the membrane control, and the flap control groups in terms of CAL gains; 3) both the EMP test and the membrane control groups showed significant CAL gains compared to the flap control group; 4) a statistically significantly greater amount of CAL gain was demonstrated in GTR-treated compared to EMP-treated patients; 5) deeper residual probing depths but smaller increases in gingival recession were demonstrated following EMP therapy; and 6) smoking habits reduced the clinical outcomes of both regenerative procedures.
                The use of a regenerative procedure is indicated in the treatment of deep vertical bony defects since both the regenerative techniques (GTR and EMD) in the present study resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in clinical parameters compared to the access flap procedure. The use of EMP can be helpful in esthetically-sensitive sites and in reducing patient morbidity.
We found no evidence of benefit when synthetic membranes were compared with cellulose/modified cellulose membranes in terms of reduced mortality no reduction in dialysis-related adverse symptoms. Despite the relatively large number of RCTs undertaken in this area none of the included studies reported any measures of quality of life.