Activation of basophils is a new and sensitive marker of biocompatibility in hemodialysis

Hypersensitive Reactions During Hemodialysis Treatment: What Do We Need to Know?

Kidney replacement therapies (KRTs) including hemodialysis (HD) are one of the treatment options for most of the patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although HD is vital for these patients, it is not hundred percent physiological, and various adverse events including hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Fortunately, these reactions are rare in total and less when compared to previous decades, but it is still very important for at least two reasons: First, the number of patients receiving kidney replacement treatment is increasing globally; and the cumulative number of these reactions may be substantial. Second, although most of these reactions are mild, some of them may be very severe and even lead to mortality. Thus, it is very important to have basic knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat these reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur at any component of dialysis machinery (access, extracorporeal circuit, medications, etc.). The most important preventive measure is to avoid the allergen. However, even with very specific test, sometimes the allergen cannot be found. In mild conditions, HD can be contained with non-specific treatment (topical creams, antihistaminics, corticosteroids). In more severe conditions, treatment must be stopped immediately, blood should not be returned to patient, drugs must be stopped, and rules of general emergency treatment must be followed.

Polymorphonuclear phenotypical expression of CD18, at baseline and after in vitro activation, in several clinical disorders: Revision of our case series

BACKGROUND

In relation to the different and important roles of the beta2 integrins, we have revisited the expression of polymorphonuclear leukocyte CD18 in several clinical disorders, at baseline and after in vitro activation.

SUBJECTS

we have examined subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus, vascular atherosclerotic disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus without and with macrovascular complications, chronic renal failure on conservative treatment, essential hypertension, deep venous thrombosis, acute ischemic stroke and subjects with venous leg ulcers.

METHODS

unfractioned leukocyte suspension was prepared according to the Mikita's method, while the leukocyte were separated into mononuclear and polymorphonuclear cells with a Ficoll-Hypaque medium. Using specific monoclonal antibody, the CD18 expression was evaluated with cytofluorimetric analysis, using FACScan (Becton Dickinson) be Cellquest software; the activation in vitro with PMA was effected according to modified Yasui and Masuda methods.

RESULTS

in type 1 diabetes mellitus, at baseline CD18 is under expressed in comparison with normal control, and not changes after PMA activation were observed; in subjects with vascular atherosclerotic disease, in type 2 diabetes mellitus CD18 is over expressed at baseline but does not vary after activation; in subjects with chronic renal failure, essential hypertension and in subjects with acute ischemic stroke the CD18 up-regulate at baseline compared to normal control, and it increases further after activation; in subjects with deep venous thrombosis the CD18 expression is not different from control group at baseline, but it increases after activation; finally, in subjects with venous leg ulcers the CD18 is normally expressed at baseline, and it does not change after PMA activation.

CONCLUSIONS

in the different clinical disorders, the trend of this integrin subunit provides some specific information, useful to select the best therapeutic strategy in clinical practice.

A new immune-toxicological test for polysulfone hypersensitivity in hemodialysis patients

Incompatibility of dialysis procedure due to hypersensitivity against dialyzer material, currently mainly based on polysulfone and derivatives, cannot be assessed by routine laboratory tests. Although the frequency of such symptoms is suspected to be lower than 2%, it resembles an important clinical problem because dialysis procedures are frequently accompanied by symptoms of non-tolerability with reasons not being entirely clear. To enlighten the role of polysulfone hypersensitivity, we adapted known standardized material immune-toxicological tests (lymphocyte transformation test, basophil degranulation test) to the specific conditions of dialysis and polysulfone material sensitivity. We developed a method of polysulfone micronisation and measured humoral immune response of isolated patient's lymphocytes when incubated with polysulfone dispersion. Thirty-nine samples from 103 patients with suspected polysulfone hypersensitivity within the dialysis population of a nation-wide dialysis provider (n = 15.761 patients) showed positive results for type 1 (n = 19), type 4 (n = 18) or both type (n = 2) reactions. This is the first methodological report showing plausible in-vitro results of patients' samples concerning polysulfone intolerance. Further clinical and laboratory research is needed to define true polysulfone hypersensitivity and to enlighten the field of hypothetic subclinical material incompatibility in patients with impaired dialysis tolerability.

Hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving hemodialysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed search of articles published during the past 30 years with an emphasis on publications in the past decade.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Case reports and review articles describing hypersensitivity reactions in the context of hemodialysis.

RESULTS

Pharmacologic agents are the most common identifiable cause of hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving hemodialysis. These include iron, erythropoietin, and heparin, which can cause anaphylactic or pseudoallergic reactions, and topical antibiotics and anesthetics, which lead to delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Many hypersensitivity reactions are triggered by complement activation and increased bradykinin resulting from contact system activation, especially in the context of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use. Several alternative pharmacologic preparations and dialyzer membranes are available, such that once an etiology for the reaction is established, recurrences can be prevented without affecting the quality of care provided to patients.

CONCLUSION

Although hypersensitivity reactions are uncommon in patients receiving hemodialysis, they can be life-threatening. Moreover, considering the large prevalence of the end-stage renal disease population, the implications of such reactions are enormous. Most reactions are pseudoallergic and not mediated by immunoglobulin E. The multiplicity of potential exposures and the complexity of the environment to which patients on dialysis are exposed make it challenging to identify the precise cause of these reactions. Great diligence is needed to investigate hypersensitivity reactions to avoid recurrence in this high-risk population.

Assessment of dialyzer surface in online hemodiafiltration; objective choice of dialyzer surface area

INTRODUCTION

Online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) is currently the most effective technique. Several randomized studies and meta-analyses have observed a reduction in mortality as well as a direct association with convective volume. Currently, it has not been well established whether a larger dialyzer surface area could provide better results in terms of convective and depurative effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of larger dialyzer surface areas on convective volume and filtration capacity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 37 patients were studied, including 31 men and 6 women, who were in the OL-HDF program using a 5008 Cordiax monitor with auto-substitution. Each patient was analyzed in 3 sessions in which only the dialyzer surface area varied (1.0, 1.4 or 1.8 m(2)). The concentrations of urea (60 Da), creatinine (113 Da), β2-microglobulin (11800 Da), myoglobin (17200 Da) and α1-microglobulin (33000 Da) were determined in serum at the beginning and end of each session in order to calculate the percent reduction of these solutes.

RESULTS

The convective volume reached was 29.8 ± 3.0 with 1.0 m(2), 32.7 ± 3.1 (an increase of 6%) with 1.4 m(2), and 34.7 ± 3.3 L (an increase of 16%) with 1.8 m(2) (p<.001). The increased surface of the dialyzer showed an increase in the dialysis dose as well as urea and creatinine filtration. The percentage of β2m reduction increased from 80.0 ± 5.6 with 1.0 m(2) to 83.2 ± 4.2 with 1.4 m(2) and to 84.3 ± 4.0% with 1.8 m(2). As for myoglobin and a1-microglobulin, significant differences were observed between smaller surface area (1.0 m(2)) 65.6 ± 11 and 20.1 ± 9.3 and the other two surface areas, which were 70.0 ± 8.1 and 24.1 ± 7.1 (1.4 m(2)) and 72.3 ± 8.7 and 28.6 ± 12 (1.8 m(2)).

CONCLUSION

The 40% and 80% increases in surface area led to increased convective volumes of 6 and 16% respectively, while showing minimal differences in both the convective volume as well as the filtration capacity when the CUF was higher than 45 ml/h/mmHg. It is recommended to optimize the performance of dialyzers with the minimal surface area possible when adjusting the treatment prescription.