01 September 2000
Haemodialysis for the elimination of contrast medium in patients with advanced renal failure is a common procedure. Even though sufficient elimination with the use of regular low-flux membranes is documented, large differences in results have been reported in prior investigations. We, therefore, compared Cuprophan and polysulfone dialysers with different surface areas to haemofiltration with different amounts of substitution fluid in 40 patients with compromised renal function after coronary angiography. Plasma iodine concentrations were measured by fluorescent excitation analysis. At constant blood flow rates of 200 ml/min, Cuprophan membranes with 1.3 m<sup>2</sup> surface area had a clearance rate of 87 ml/min, whereas polysulfone membranes of comparable size displayed a significantly higher clearance rate of 147 ml/min. Polysulfone membranes with 1.8 m<sup>2</sup> surface area showed a small but insignificant increase in the iodine clearance (162 ml/min), while Cuprophan membranes displayed an increase in clearance rates (121 ml/min). Additional ultrafiltration led to a further increase in the plasma clearance of both membranes and reduced urinary iodine excretion. Haemofiltration was comparable to haemodialysis in terms of efficacy and thus represents an alternative method. Clearance of iopromide during haemodialysis with polysulfone membranes is higher than with Cuprophan membranes. Elimination rates can be further increased by additional ultrafiltration. Haemofiltration is comparable to haemodialysis regarding contrast medium elimination.