Clinical study of high-flux cuprammonium rayon hemodialysis membranes

Advances in Enhancing Hemocompatibility of Hemodialysis Hollow-Fiber Membranes

Hemodialysis, the most common modality of renal replacement therapy, is critically required to remove uremic toxins from the blood of patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, the chronic inflammation, oxidative stress as well as thrombosis induced by the long-term contact of hemoincompatible hollow-fiber membranes (HFMs) contribute to the increase in cardiovascular diseases and mortality in this patient population. This review first retrospectively analyzes the current clinical and laboratory research progress in improving the hemocompatibility of HFMs. Details on different HFMs currently in clinical use and their design are described. Subsequently, we elaborate on the adverse interactions between blood and HFMs, involving protein adsorption, platelet adhesion and activation, and the activation of immune and coagulation systems, and the focus is on how to improve the hemocompatibility of HFMs in these aspects. Finally, challenges and future perspectives for improving the hemocompatibility of HFMs are also discussed to promote the development and clinical application of new hemocompatible HFMs.

Graphical Abstract

High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines regarding the use of high-flux haemodialysis membranes vary widely.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyse the current evidence reported for the benefits and harms of high-flux and low-flux haemodialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2011), and EMBASE (1947 to March 2011) without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-flux haemodialysis with low-flux haemodialysis in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who required long-term haemodialysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors for study characteristics (participants and interventions), risks of bias, and outcomes (all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality, hospitalisation, health-related quality of life, carpal tunnel syndrome, dialysis-related arthropathy, kidney function, and symptoms) among people on haemodialysis. Treatment effects were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies that involved 3820 participants with ESKD. High-flux membranes reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 studies, 2612 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99) but not all-cause mortality (10 studies, 2915 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04) or infection-related mortality (3 studies, 2547 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14). In absolute terms, high-flux membranes may prevent three cardiovascular deaths in 100 people treated with haemodialysis for two years. While high-flux membranes reduced predialysis beta-2 microglobulin levels (MD -12.17 mg/L, 95% CI -15.83 to -8.51 mg/L), insufficient data were available to reliably estimate the effects of membrane flux on hospitalisation, carpal tunnel syndrome, or amyloid-related arthropathy. Evidence for effects of high-flux membranes was limited by selective reporting in a few studies. Insufficient numbers of studies limited our ability to conduct subgroup analyses for membrane type, biocompatibility, or reuse. In general, the risk of bias was either high or unclear in the majority of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-flux haemodialysis may reduce cardiovascular mortality in people requiring haemodialysis by about 15%. A large well-designed RCT is now required to confirm this finding.

Does an alteration of dialyzer design and geometry affect biocompatibility parameters?

The aim of the study was to assess the biocompatibility profile of a newly developed high-flux polysulfone dialyzer type (FX-class dialyzer). The new class of dialyzers incorporates a number of novel design features (including a new membrane) that have been developed specifically in order to enhance the removal of small- and middle-size molecules. The new FX dialyzer series was compared with the classical routinely used high-flux polysulfone F series of dialyzers. In an open prospective, randomized, crossover clinical study, concentrations of the C5a complement component, and leukocyte count in blood and various thrombogenicity parameters were evaluated before, and at 15 and 60 min of hemodialysis at both dialyzer inlet and outlet in 9 long-term hemodialysis patients using the FX60S dialyzers and, after crossover, the classical F60S, while in another 9 patients, the evaluation was made with the dialyzers used in reverse order. The comparison of dialyzers based on evaluation of the group including all procedures with the FX60S and the group including procedures with the F60S did not reveal significant differences in platelet count, activated partial thromboplastin times, plasma heparin levels, platelet factor-4, D-dimer, C5a, and leukocyte count at any point of the collecting period. Both dialyzer types showed a significant increase in the plasma levels of the thrombin-antithrombin III complexes; however, the measured levels were only slightly elevated compared with the upper end of the normal range. Biocompatibility parameters reflecting the behavior of platelets, fibrinolysis, complement activation, and leukopenia do not differ during dialysis with either the FX60S or the F60S despite their large differences in design and geometry features. Although coagulation activation, as evaluated by one of the parameters used, was slightly higher with the FX60S, it was still within the range seen with other highly biocompatible dialyzers and therefore is not indicative of any appreciable activation of the coagulation system. Thus, the incorporation of various performance-enhancing design features into the new FX class of dialyzers does not result in a deterioration of their biocompatibility profile, which is comparable to that of the classical F series of dialyzers.

Cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease

BACKGROUND

When the kidney fails the blood-borne metabolites of protein breakdown and water cannot be excreted. The principle of haemodialysis is that such substances can be removed when blood is passed over a semipermeable membrane. Natural membrane materials include cellulose or modified cellulose, more recently various synthetic membranes have been developed. Synthetic membranes are regarded as being more "biocompatible" in that they incite less of an immune response than cellulose-based membranes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different haemodialysis membrane material in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PreMEDLINE, HealthStar CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis, SIGLE, CRIB, UK National Research Register and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted biomedical companies, known investigators and handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: June 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing different haemodialysis membrane material in patients with ESRD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of studies. Data was abstracted onto a standard form by one reviewer and checked by another. Relative Risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) MAIN RESULTS: Thirty two studies were identified. Pre-dialysis ss(2) microglobulin concentrations were not significantly lower in patients treated with synthetic membranes (WMD -14.67, 95% CI -33.10 to 4.05). When analysed for change in ss(2) microglobulin, a fall was only noted with high-flux membranes. The incidence of amyloid was less in patients who were dialysed for six years with high-flux synthetic membranes (one study, RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54). There was a significant difference in favour of the synthetic (high-flux) membrane in comparison to cellulose membranes for triglycerides (WMD -0.66; 95% CI -1.18 to -0.14) but not for modified cellulose membranes. Dialysis adequacy measured by Kt/V was marginally higher when cellulose membranes were used (WMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.04), whereas synthetic membranes achieved significantly higher Kt/V values when compared with modified cellulose membranes (WMD 0.20, 95% 0.11 to 0.29) . There were no data on quality of life measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Comparison of cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease

BACKGROUND

When the kidney fails the blood borne metabolites of protein breakdown and water cannot be excreted. The principle of haemodialysis is that such substances can be removed when blood is passed over a semipermeable membrane. Natural membrane materials can be used including cellulose or modified cellulose, more recently various synthetic membranes have been developed. Synthetic membranes are regarded as being more "biocompatible" in that they incite less of an immune response than cellulose-based membranes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different haemodialysis membrane material in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline (1966 to December 2000), Embase (1981 to November 2000), PreMedline (29 November 2000), HealthStar (1975 to December 2000), Cinahl (1982 to October 2000), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 1996), Biosis (1989 to June 1995), Sigle (1980 to June 1996), Crib (10th edition, 1995), UK National Research Register (September 1996), and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted biomedical companies, investigators and we hand searched Kidney International (1980 to 1997). Date of the most recent searches: November 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing different haemodialysis membrane material in patients with ESRD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of studies. Data was abstracted from included studies onto a standard form by one reviewer and checked by another.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty seven studies met our inclusion criteria and where possible data from these were summated by meta-analyses (Peto's odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). Twenty two outcome measures were sought in 10 broad areas. For two (number of episodes of significant infection per year and quality of life) no data were available. For the comparison of cellulose with synthetic membranes, data for 12/20 outcome measures were available in only a single trial. For modified cellulose and synthetic membranes, data for three outcome measures were available in one trial only and for 12 of the outcomes no data were found, crossover studies were analysed separately and studies which randomised by patient yet analysed by dialysis sessions adjusted for clustering. Pre-dialysis beta2 microglobulin concentrations were significantly lower at the end of the studies in patients treated with synthetic membranes (WMD - 14.5; 95% CI -17.4 to -11.6). One crossover study showed a lowering of beta2 microglobulin when low flux synthetic membranes were used. When analysed for a change in beta2 microglobulin across a trial a fall was only noted when high flux membranes were used. In one very small study the incidence of amyloid was less in patients who were dialysed for six years with high flux synthetic membranes (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In the single study which measured triglyceride values there was a significant difference in favour of the synthetic (high flux) membrane (WMD -0.66; 95% CI -1.18 to -0.14). Serum albumin was higher in patients treated with synthetic membranes (both low and high flux) although this just bordered statistical significance (WMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.18 to 0.00). Dialysis adequacy measured by Kt/V was marginally higher when cellulose membranes were used (WMD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.16). There was no significant difference between these membranes for any of the other clinical outcomes measures but confidence intervals were generally wide. No differences were found between modified cellulose and synthetic membranes although many fewer trials were carried out for this comparison.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

For clinical practice This systematic literature review has generated no evidence of benefit when synthetic membranes were used compared with cellulose/modified cellulose membranes in terms of reduced mortality nor 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. End-of-study beta2 microglobulin values, and possibly the development of amyloid disease, were less in patients treated with synthetic membranes compared with cellulose membranes. Plasma triglyceride values were also lower with synthetic membranes in the single study that measured this outcome. Differences in these outcomes may have reflected the high flux of the synthetic membrane. Serum albumin was higher when synthetic membranes of both high and low flux were used. Kt/V and urea reduction ratio were higher when cellulose or modified cellulose membranes were used in the few studies that measured these outcomes. We are hesitant to recommend the universal use of synthetic membranes for haemodialysis in patients with ESRD because of; the small number of trials (particularly for modified cellulose membranes, most with low patient numbers), the heterogeneity of many of the trials compared, the variations in membrane flux, the differences in exclusion criteria, particularly relating to comorbidity and the relative lack of patient-centred outcomes studied. Such evidence as we have favours synthetic membranes but even if we assume extra benefit it may be at considerable cost, particularly if high flux synthetic membranes were to be used. For further research A further systematic review of RCTs comparing high and low flux haemodialysis membranes, subgrouped according to membrane composition (cellulose, modified cellulose, synthetic) and reporting clinical outcomes of major importance to patients needs to be undertaken. Further pragmatic RCTs are required to compare the different dialysis membranes available. We recommend that they: - Take into account other properties including flux as well as the material from which the membrane is made and test modified cellulose membranes as well as standard ones. - Record an agreed minimum dataset on primary outcomes of major importance to patients. - Explicitly record whether symptoms are patient- or staff-reported recognising that generally patient reporting will be more appropriate for evaluating effectiveness but staff reported data may be necessary for calculating the cost of treating complications. - Be multi-centre (and possibly multinational) to have sufficient patients to complete the study to allow for a considerable number of withdrawals and dropouts. - Have sufficient length of follow up to draw conclusions for important clinical outcome measures and continue to follow patients who have renal transplants. - Include older patients and those with comorbid illnesses and take into account age and comorbidity when assessing outcomes (possibly by stratification at trial entry). - Carry out, in parallel, an economic evaluation of the different policies being compared in the trial.