Is the choice of membrane important for patients with acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis? Patient survival and renal recovery in acute renal failure: randomized comparison of cellulose acetate and polysulfone membrane dialyzers. Biocompatible dialysis membranes and acute renal failure: a study in post-operative acute tubular necrosis in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. 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. Biocompatible membranes do not promote graft recovery following cadaveric renal transplantation. Haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility and mortality of patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure: a prospective randomised multicentre trial. International Multicentre Study Group. Low-flux versus high-flux synthetic dialysis membrane in acute renal failure: prospective randomized study. Comparison of cellulose diacetate and polysulfone membranes in the outcome of acute renal failure. A prospective randomized study.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 no demonstrable clinical advantage to the use of BCM versus BICM in patients with ARF who require intermittent hemodialysis.