Dialyzer reuse, the practice of using the same dialyzer for multiple hemodialysis
treatments, has been in place since 1960s.1
,
2 While there has been a
steady decline of dialyzer reuse in the United States and Europe since late 1990s,
it
continues to be mainstream across most of the developing world.3
-
6
Dialyzer reuse involves a complicated multistep process that includes rinsing, cleaning,
performance testing, and disinfection of dialyzers prior to reuse. The process requires
the use of cleaning and germicidal agents that are potentially toxic, and accidental
contact with these agents may expose both patients and dialysis staff to health
hazards.1
,
7
-
9 There are also
reports of Gram-negative bacteremia outbreaks from the break-down in infection-control
systems,10
-
12 and even a low-level exposure to toxins and microbiological
contamination may contribute to chronic inflammation. Despite these potential risks,
there are no randomized-controlled trials comparing single-use and reuse practices,
and
the evidence from observational studies are inconsistent.6
,
13 There is also a
concern for conflicts of interest as studies sponsored by disinfectant manufacturers
tend to show single-use and reuse practices having similar health outcomes while those
sponsored by dialyzer manufacturers are more prone to show reduced risk with
single-use.13
,
14 Notwithstanding the available evidence, given
the 50 years of clinical experience with dialyzer reuse, there is a general agreement
that the reuse process is likely safe when there is a strict adherence to the standards
set by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI).15
Traditionally, dialyzer reuse was employed to improve dialyzer membrane biocompatibility,
particularly of cellulose membranes, and lower the risk of first-use syndromes observed
in ethylene oxide-sterilized dialyzers. These advantages of reuse are now moot due
to
the widespread availability of biocompatible dialyzer membranes and favorable
sterilization techniques.6 Economic
considerations, on the other hand, continue to make dialyzer reuse appealing for many
dialysis service providers. Economic considerations, however, are not uniform around
the
world or, in many places, even within the same country. There is an argument that
the
cost-benefit with reuse may be negligible in areas of the world where the costs related
to reuse-related personnel and safe storage space are high.6 The relative cost savings,
however, is expected to be higher in
areas where the personnel and space costs are low.3
,
5
,
16 Even a marginal cost-saving would be important
in financially strained health systems, or in instances when patients share the cost
of
their dialysis care.
In this backdrop, Dr. Ribeiro and colleagues report the findings of their small
cross-over study examining the differences in clinical and microbiological parameters
with single-use and reuse practices.17 Ten
patients were selected to undergo one hemodialysis treatment using the single-use
practice and twelve hemodialysis treatments using the reuse-practice. Clinical,
laboratory, and microbiological parameters were collected during the single-use
treatment (N = 10 sessions) and during the 1st, 6th, and
12th reuse treatments (N = 30 sessions). High-flux polysulfone dialyzers
that were steam-sterilized were used, and the reprocessing was done manually using
the
institutional protocol that was based on the AAMI’s standards. Dialyzers were cleaned
using the solution composed of peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, and
active oxygen (Peroxide P50, Bell Type Industries, Brazil). Inflammatory biomarkers,
C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin were noted to be high at baseline and increase
after hemodialysis in both single-use and reuse treatments. Endotoxin levels were
similar before and after both single-use and reuse treatments. Median serum levels
of
CRP and endotoxins, pre- and post- hemodialysis treatments, were not significantly
different between single-use and reuse sessions. Blood and protein residues were found
in most dialyzers after the reuse sessions, but samples from the sanitizing liquid
stored in the dialyzer blood chamber were free of bacterial and endotoxin
contamination.
While the findings from this study provide reassurances about the safety of dialyzer
reuse, there are important caveats. First, there was no wash-out phase in the study,
and
patients were using reused dialyzers prior to their first and only single-use treatment.
So, if there is any benefit to single-use dialyzer, one treatment alone may not be
adequate to observe a change in clinical and laboratory parameters. Second, the adverse
consequences from reuse tend to occur when there are human errors in the implementation
of the AAMI’s standards. Therefore, a reassuring finding in a study of ten patients
still leaves open the question of whether the reuse practice is safe in large health
systems where any lapse in the execution of reprocessing standards may lead to adverse
patient outcomes. Third, the findings from this study are only valid for the type
of
dialyzers and cleaning agents used in the study, namely steam-sterilized high-flux
polysulfone dialyzers and the peracetic acid-based cleaning system. It would thus
not be
advisable to extrapolate these findings to modified-cellulose dialyzers, dialyzers
that
use sterilization practices other than steam, or to reuse systems that do not use
peracetic acid-based cleaning agents.
In conclusion, the study by Dr. Ribeiro and colleagues reinforces the notion that
the
dialyzer reuse practice is likely safe when performed according to the standards set
by
the AAMI. The medical reasoning for dialyzer reuse, however, is obsolete in the current
era of biocompatible dialyzers, and the potential for cost-saving is the only rationale
for its continued practice. It is now imperative to conduct a systematic cost-benefit
analysis of reuse practices in developing countries where any cost-saving can have
an
important impact in the availability of hemodialysis treatments.