On-line continuous hemodiafiltration in sepsis

An easy disinfection strategy for pipes connecting hemodialysis equipment

INTRODUCTION

A hemodialysis room has pipes connecting the console and central fluid equipment. While these pipes require disinfection, reports detailing disinfection strategies are unavailable. Therefore, we aimed to compare two easy disinfection strategies differing in sanitization frequency and sanitizer concentration.

METHODS

Reverse osmosis water (ROW) purifying equipment and six dialysis consoles were connected by 20 m of pipes. Only ROW flowed through these pipes, because the dialysate solution was constituted at each console. The pipes were sanitized by two strategies: (1) strong and monthly (hypochlorite concentration: 100 ppm) or (2) weak and weekly (5 ppm). Both strategies were easy because the sodium hypochlorite was simply added to the ROW tank. To estimate sanitization efficacy, endotoxin counts at the ROW tank outlet, the end of the pipe, and the pipe after the endotoxin-cutting filter in each console were measured monthly for six continuous months. These counts were compared between the two sanitization strategies.

RESULTS

The endotoxin counts at the ROW tank outlet and the end of the pipe were 0.004-0.017 and 0.012-0.081 EU/mL, respectively, in the strong and monthly strategy, and 0.001-0.003 and 0.001-0.005 EU/mL, respectively, in the weak and weekly strategy. The endotoxin counts at the pipe after the endotoxin-cutting filter were less than 0.001 EU/mL during the study period in both strategies.

CONCLUSION

A weekly disinfection strategy was more effective than a monthly one, despite the lower hypochlorite concentration. The present study suggests that frequency is the most important factor in the disinfection of pipes in a dialysis room.

On-line hemodiafiltration did not induce an overproduction of oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokines in intensive care unit-acute kidney injury

Background

Though on-line intermittent hemodiafiltration (OL-IHDF) is a routine therapy for chronic dialysis patients, it is not yet widespread used in critically ill patients. This study was undergone to evaluate efficiency and tolerance of OL-IHDF and to appreciate inflammatory consequences of its use in intensive care unit (ICU)-acute kidney injury (AKI) patients.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study conducted in a medical academic ICU in France, 30 AKI patients who underwent OL-IHDF were included. OL-HDF used an ultrapure water production: AQ 1250 line with double reverse osmosis, a generator 5008 with a 1.8m² dialyzer with Polysulfone membrane (Fresenius Medical Care). Tolerance and efficiency of OL-IHDF were evaluated as well as its inflammatory risk by the measurement of plasma concentrations of proinflammatory (Interleukin 6, IL1β, IL8, Interferon γ) and anti-inflammatory (IL4, IL10) cytokines, Epidermal growth factor (EGF), Vascular Endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Macrophage Chemoattractive Protein-1 (MCP-1) before and after sessions.

Results

Intradialytic hypotensive events were observed during 27/203 OL-IHDF sessions accounting for a mal-tolerated session’s rate at 13.3%. Mean delivered urea Kt/V per session was 1.12 ± 0.27 with a percentage of reduction for urea, creatinine, β2-microglobulin and cystatine C at 61.6 ± 8.8%, 55.3 ± 6.7%, 51.5 ± 8.7% and 44.5 ± 9.8% respectively. Production of superoxide anion by leukocytes, mean levels of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and plasmatic concentrations of EGF, VEGF and MCP-1 did not differ before and after OL-IHDF sessions. We observed however a significant decrease of mean TNFα plasmatic concentrations from 8.2 ± 5.8 to 4.8 ± 3.5 pg/ml at the end of OL-IHDF.

Conclusions

OL-IHDF was not associated with an increase in pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines, oxidative stress or EGF, VEGF and MCP-1 in AKI patients and seems therefore a secure and feasible modality in ICUs.