Dialysis membrane: from convection to adsorption

COVID-19: The Dysregulated Response to Infection - Why Consider Polymethylmethacrylate Membrane in Hemodialysis Patients?

Since SARS-CoV-2 spread through China at the end of 2019, COVID-19 has been probably the most difficult challenge in the last decades for healthcare systems all around the world, still representing a danger for fragile patients with different comorbidities. Chronic dialysis patients affected by COVID-19 experienced severe disease with a higher mortality rate compared to the general population. Morbidity and mortality of this severe acute respiratory syndrome depend on both acute respiratory failure and systemic immunological involvement with consequent inflammation-mediated injury. Indeed, the most important determining factor of COVID-19 severity is the strength of the so-called "cytokine storm" associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, this severe infection varies clinically from an asymptomatic condition to a generalized and violent inflammatory response and acute respiratory distress syndrome, with consequent pulmonary interstitial edema and a high risk of multi-organ failure. The use of extracorporeal therapies targeting cytokine clearance to improve patients' outcomes has been widely debated, especially in end-stage kidney disease's patients on maintenance dialysis or in individuals affected by acute kidney injury admitted to intensive care units. Different studies were conducted to demonstrate how specific dialyzers could decrease the COVID-19 inflammatory state. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize main studies about this topic, focusing primarily on the role of polymethylmethacrylate dialyzer and underlining pros and cons of this sorbent.

Removal of Middle Molecules and Dialytic Albumin Loss: A Cross-over Study of Medium Cutoff and High-Flux Membranes with Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration

Key Points

HDF and MCO have shown greater clearance of middle-size uremic solutes in comparison with HF dialyzers; MCO has never been studied in HDF. MCO in HDF does not increase the clearance of B2M and results in a higher loss of albumin.

Background

Middle molecule removal and albumin loss have been studied in medium cutoff (MCO) membranes on hemodialysis (HD). It is unknown whether hemodiafiltration (HDF) with MCO membranes provides additional benefit. We aimed to compare the removal of small solutes and β 2-microglobulin (B2M), albumin, and total proteins between MCO and high-flux (HFX) membranes with both HD and HDF, respectively.

Methods

The cross-over study comprised 4 weeks, one each with postdilutional HDF using HFX (HFX-HDF), MCO (MCO-HDF), HD with HFX (HFX-HD), and MCO (MCO-HD). MCO and HFX differ with respect to several characteristics, including membrane composition, pore size distribution, and surface area (HFX, 2.5 m2; MCO, 1.7 m2). There were two study treatments per week, one after the long interdialytic interval and another midweek. Reduction ratios of vitamin B12, B2M, phosphate, uric acid, and urea corrected for hemoconcentration were computed. Dialysis albumin and total protein loss during the treatment were quantified from dialysate samples.

Results

Twelve anuric patients were studied (six female patients; 44±19 years; dialysis vintage 35.2±28 months). The blood flow was 369±23 ml/min, dialysate flow was 495±61 ml/min, and ultrafiltration volume was 2.8±0.74 L. No significant differences were found regarding the removal of B2M, vitamin B12, and water-soluble solutes between dialytic modalities and dialyzers. Albumin and total protein loss were significantly higher in MCO groups than HFX groups when compared with the same modality. HDF groups had significantly higher albumin and total protein loss than HD groups when compared with the same dialyzer. MCO-HDF showed the highest protein loss among all groups.

Conclusions

MCO-HD is not superior to HFX-HD and HFX-HDF for both middle molecule and water-soluble solute removal. Protein loss was more pronounced with MCO when compared with HFX on both HD and HDF modalities. MCO-HDF has no additional benefits regarding better removal of B2M but resulted in greater protein loss than MCO-HD.

Evaluation and comparison of polysulfone TS-UL and PMMA NF-U dialyzers versus expanded hemodialysis and postdilution hemodiafiltration

Toray has created a new generation of dialyzers, the polysulphone (TS) UL series, and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) NF-U series, which offer enhanced efficacy over the previous TS-S series and NF-H series. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these dialyzer series versus contrasted expanded hemodialysis (HDx) and postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF). We conducted a prospective study in 12 patients. Each patient underwent six dialysis sessions: FX80 Cordiax in HD, Toraysulfone TS-1.8 UL in HD, Theranova 400 in HDx, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) NF-2.1 U in HDF, Toraysulfone TS-2.1 UL in HDF, and FX80 Cordiax in HDF. The removal ratios (RRs) of urea, creatinine, ß₂ -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α₁ -microglobulin, α₁ -acid glycoprotein, and albumin were compared intraindividually. Dialysate albumin loss was also measured. The RRs for β₂ -microglobulin, myoglobin, prolactin, α₁ -microglobulin, and α₁ -acid glycoprotein were higher with the TS-2.1 UL and FX80 Cordiax dialyzers in HDF than those obtained with HD treatments and NF-2.1 U in HDF. The β₂ -microglobulin, myoglobin, and prolactin RRs were also higher with HDx than those obtained with HD treatments. The myoglobin and prolactin RRs were higher with TS-1.8 UL in HD than those obtained with helixone dialyzers in HD. Dialysate albumin loss was less than 3 g in all situations except in TS-2.1 UL in HDF. The highest global removal score values were obtained with the TS-2.1 UL and helixone dialyzers in HDF. Significant differences were found between all study situations. In conclusion, the new generation dialyzers, Toraysulfone TS Series UL and PMMA NF-U series, show excellent behaviour and tolerance in HD and HDF, representing an upgrade versus their predecessor series. The higher permeability of the TS UL series has been proven with higher efficiency in HD and maximum performance in HDF. The new PMMA NF-U series allows the use of HDF with good efficiency and complete safety.

Clearance of inflammatory cytokines in patients with septic acute kidney injury during renal replacement therapy using the EMiC2 filter (Clic-AKI study)

BACKGROUND

The EMiC2 membrane is a medium cut-off haemofilter (45 kiloDalton). Little is known regarding its efficacy in eliminating medium-sized cytokines in sepsis. This study aimed to explore the effects of continuous veno-venous haemodialysis (CVVHD) using the EMiC2 filter on cytokine clearance.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted in critically ill patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury requiring kidney replacement therapy. We measured concentrations of 12 cytokines [Interleukin (IL) IL-1β, IL-1α, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, interferon (IFN)-γ, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α, vascular endothelial growth factor, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, epidermal growth factor (EGF)] in plasma at baseline (T0) and pre- and post-dialyzer at 1, 6, 24, and 48 h after CVVHD initiation and in the effluent fluid at corresponding time points. Outcomes were the effluent and adsorptive clearance rates, mass balances, and changes in serial serum concentrations.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were included in the final analysis. All cytokines except EGF concentrations declined over 48 h (p < 0.001). The effluent clearance rates were variable and ranged from negligible values for IL-2, IFN-γ, IL-1α, IL-1β, and EGF, to 19.0 ml/min for TNF-α. Negative or minimal adsorption was observed. The effluent and adsorptive clearance rates remained steady over time. The percentage of cytokine removal was low for most cytokines throughout the 48-h period.

CONCLUSION

EMiC2-CVVHD achieved modest removal of most cytokines and demonstrated small to no adsorptive capacity despite a decline in plasma cytokine concentrations. This suggests that changes in plasma cytokine concentrations may not be solely influenced by extracorporeal removal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03231748, registered on 27th July 2017.

Oxidative Stress in Hemodialysis Patients: Pathophysiological Mechanisms, Clinical Consequences and Basic Principles of Treatment

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in patients who undergo regular hemodialysis. Oxidative stress is a non-traditional risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases in this population of patients. It is defined as tissue damage caused by balance disturbance between the formation of free radicals and the function of protective antioxidative systems. The superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide are precursors in the formation of stronger oxidants, such as: hydroxyl radical, peroxynitrite and hypochloric acid. Superoxide dismutase is the first line of antioxidant protection while catalase, glutathione peroxidase, trace elements, vitamin C, vitamin E, N-acetylcysteine and coenzyme Q10 also have a significant antioxidative role. Hemo-dialysis is itself a trigger for the increased formation of oxygen free radicals. The two main pathophysiological mechanisms of the increased formation of free oxygen radicals during the hemo-dialysis session are: bionicompatibility of the dialysis membrane and the presence of endotoxins in the hemodialysis solution. The measurement of myeloperoxidase concentration in a patient’s serum during hemodialysis is an indicator of the severity of oxidative stress induced by the dialysis membrane (an indicator of the biocompatibility of the dialysis membrane). The main clinical consequences of oxidative stress include: atherosclerosis, erythropoietin resistance, malnutrition and amyloidosis associated with hemodialysis. The evaluation of oxidative stress in patients undergoing hemodialysis is performed by measuring the concentration of lipid peroxidation products (malonyldialdehyde, 4-hydroxynonenal, TBARS, F2-isoprostane, oxLDL), protein oxidation (AOPP), protein gelling (AGE), and oxidation of nucleic acids (8-OHdG). The antioxidant treatment strategy consists of replenishing vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, N-acetylcysteine and coenzyme Q10. On-line hemodialysis, a biocompatible vitamin E-coated dialysis membrane, an ultra-pure solution for hemodialysis, prevent oxidative stress, reduce the rate of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and improve life quality of patients treated with regular hemodialysis.

Prescribing Hemodialysis or Hemodiafiltration: When One Size Does Not Fit All the Proposal of a Personalized Approach Based on Comorbidity and Nutritional Status

There is no simple way to prescribe hemodialysis. Changes in the dialysis population, improvements in dialysis techniques, and different attitudes towards the initiation of dialysis have influenced treatment goals and, consequently, dialysis prescription. However, in clinical practice prescription of dialysis still often follows a "one size fits all" rule, and there is no agreed distinction between treatment goals for the younger, lower-risk population, and for older, high comorbidity patients. In the younger dialysis population, efficiency is our main goal, as assessed by the demonstrated close relationship between depuration (tested by kinetic adequacy) and survival. In the ageing dialysis population, tolerance is probably a better objective: "good dialysis" should allow the patient to attain a stable metabolic balance with minimal dialysis-related morbidity. We would like therefore to open the discussion on a personalized approach to dialysis prescription, focused on efficiency in younger patients and on tolerance in older ones, based on life expectancy, comorbidity, residual kidney function, and nutritional status, with particular attention placed on elderly, high-comorbidity populations, such as the ones presently treated in most European centers. Prescription of dialysis includes reaching decisions on the following elements: dialysis modality (hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF)); type of membrane (permeability, surface); and the frequency and duration of sessions. Blood and dialysate flow, anticoagulation, and reinfusion (in HDF) are also briefly discussed. The approach described in this concept paper was developed considering the following items: nutritional markers and integrated scores (albumin, pre-albumin, cholesterol; body size, Body Mass Index (BMI), Malnutrition Inflammation Score (MIS), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)); life expectancy (age, comorbidity (Charlson Index), and dialysis vintage); kinetic goals (Kt/V, normalized protein catabolic rate (n-PCR), calcium phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), beta-2 microglobulin); technical aspects including vascular access (fistula versus catheter, degree of functionality); residual kidney function and weight gain; and dialysis tolerance (intradialytic hypotension, post-dialysis fatigue, and subjective evaluation of the effect of dialysis on quality of life). In the era of personalized medicine, we hope the approach described in this concept paper, which requires validation but has the merit of providing innovation, may be a first step towards raising attention on this issue and will be of help in guiding dialysis choices that exploit the extraordinary potential of the present dialysis "menu".

Technology innovation for patients with kidney disease

The loss of kidney function is a life-changing event leading to life-long dependence on healthcare. Around 5000 people are diagnosed with kidney failure every year. Historically, technology in renal medicine has been employed for replacement therapies. Recently, a lot of emphasis has been placed on technologies that aid early identification and prevent progression of kidney disease, while at the same time empowering affected individuals to gain control over their chronic illness. There is a shift in diversity of technology development, driven by collaborative innovation initiatives such the National Institute's for Health Research Healthcare Technology Co-operative for Devices for Dignity. This has seen the emergence of the patient as a key figure in designing technologies that are fit for purpose, while business involvement has ensured uptake and sustainability of these developments. An embodiment of this approach is the first successful Small Business Research Initiative in the field of renal medicine in the UK.

Adsorption techniques: dialysis sorbents and membranes

Adsorption is based on the attraction between the sorbent and the solute through hydrophobic interactions, ionic or electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonding or van der Waals forces. Adsorption is the adherence of molecules by the above-mentioned forces not only to the surface of the membrane but also to its interior. Since polymethylmethacrylate membranes have a much higher inside effective exchange surface than polysulfone membranes, these membranes are able to ensure a high level of adsorption, and therefore reduce the concentration of high-molecular-weight molecules and protein-bound uremic toxins.

Polymethylmethacrylate membrane and serum free light chain removal: enhancing adsorption properties

INTRODUCTION

Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) membranes can adsorb a wide variety of uremic toxins including serum free light chains (sFLC). However, limited data are available regarding the clinical use of PMMA in multiple myeloma patients and its maximum adsorption capacity in this setting.

AIM

This study aimed to measure the capacity of PMMA to adsorb sFLC and identify strategies to improve its efficiency in clinical practice.

METHODS

Ten patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure and high levels of sFLC were included in the study. Five patients received standard PMMA hemodialysis (HD; n = 18), while in the other 5 patients a new technique called enhanced adsorption dialysis (EAD) was used, which involves PMMA dialyzer replacement after 2 h (n = 19). In all patients, sFLC were measured at the beginning and at the end of each dialysis session to calculate the difference between start and end of treatment and the percentage removal.

RESULTS

PMMA membranes reduced sFLC in both the PMMA HD and EAD groups. PMMA HD showed similar efficiency on κ and λ percentage removal (22.3 and 21.0%, respectively, n.s.) but, in contrast, had a significantly greater effect on the delta of sFLC in κ [1,555 mg/l (-511 to +6,027)] versus λ [390 mg/l (120-650)] treatments (p = 0.007). EAD treatments only partially increased percentage removal of κ sFLC (22.3-31.0%, p = 0.38), while they had a significantly great effect on λ (21.0-53.1%, p = 0.003). A positive linear correlation was found between delta sFLC and pre-HD sFLC concentrations in PMMA HD κ treatments (r = 0.68, p < 0.02) but not for λ treatments (r = 0.54, p = 0.21), while the analysis of patients receiving EAD demonstrated a strong positive correlation for both κ and λ subtypes (r = 0.81 and r = 0.85, respectively, p < 0.008). In EAD sessions, a positive linear correlation was shown between blood flow during treatment and percentage removal of sFLC (r = 0.58, p = 0.02); however, with PMMA HD such a correlation was not observed (r = 0.28, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

PMMA membranes can efficiently adsorb sFLC, but the process is limited by membrane saturation and is different between κ and λ sFLC. The new EAD technique can greatly improve λ removal but only partially act on κ sFLC. Therefore, EAD should be considered a valid economic treatment option without side effects in particular subsets of patients for the removal of sFLC.

Hemodiafiltration: the addition of convective flow to hemodialysis

Hemodiafiltration (HDF) combines both hemofiltration (HF) and hemodialysis in the same procedure. It was initially performed in adults in 1977, and later used in children in the early 1980s. The use of HDF allows a determined convective dialysis dose to be combined with the conventional urea dialysis dose. The dialysis session is better tolerated as a result of the effects of hemofiltration. On-line HDF, i.e., substitution fluid prepared from ultrafiltration of the ultrapure dialysate, can be performed safely due to recent advances in modern technology. However, despite interest and feasibility in children, the majority of pediatric dialysis units across the world still perform hemodialysis using highly permeable membranes, allowing back filtration in the filter and therefore a degree of convective flow, i.e., internal hemodiafiltration. In some countries, government restrictions prohibit the use of on-line hemodiafiltration, (such as the FDA recommendations in North America), and therefore it should not be used in these circumstances.

Optimal hemodialysis prescription: do children need more than a urea dialysis dose?

When prescribing hemodialysis in children, the clinician should first establish an adequate regimen, before seeking to optimize the treatment (Fischbach et al. 2005). A complete dialysis dose should consist of a urea dialysis dose and a determined convective volume. Intensified and more frequent dialysis regimens should not be considered exclusively as rescue therapy. Interestingly, a recent single-center study demonstrated that frequent on-line HDF provides an optimal dialysis prescription, both in terms of blood pressure control (and therefore avoidance of left ventricular hypertrophy), and catch-up growth, that is, no malnutrition or cachexia and less resistance to growth hormone. Nevertheless, this one-center experience would benefit from a prospective randomized study.

Introduction: beyond toxins removal, towards high-quality dialysis

The choice of dialyzer may affect the dialysis process more than any other single component of the dialysis system. Over the past five decades, membranes used for the treatment of chronic kidney disease have continuously evolved, and the use of classical non-modified cellulose membranes has declined in favor of cellulose-based membranes in which the basic structure has been modified to improve the biocompatibility profile of the material as well as membranes based on synthetic polymers. Dialysis membranes with the best biological properties should be biocompatible, exclude impurities in the dialysate and have a large pore size. A high adsorptive capacity, a main feature of the polymethylmetacrylate (PMMA) membranes, is high helpful and may both increase the total amount of solutes removed and removes different kinds of solutes. Moreover, PMMA dialyzer membrane has a good chance to obtain an optimal rather than an adequate dialysis in the field of biocompatibility, immune regulation and inflammation.