+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Biocompatibility Differences with Respect to the Dialyzer Sterilization Method

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The impact of the method of sterilization (steam vs. ethylene oxide, ETO) on indices of biocompatibility is investigated using polysulfone membranes. Eight patients were treated with a random choice of the high-flux membranes F60S (steam) and F60 (ETO) and the low-flux membrane F6 (ETO). Blood samples were taken prior to and 5, 15, 30, 60, and 180 min after the start of hemodialysis. White blood cell count, platelet count, and plasma concentrations of polymorphonuclear neutrophil elastase, complements C3a and C5a, and β<sub>2</sub>-microglobulin were determined. The dialysis procedure was associated with a significant decrease in white blood cell count and β<sub>2</sub>-microglobulin level and a significant increase in polymorphonuclear neutrophil elastase and complement C3a and C5a levels. However, the steam-sterilized F60S membrane had a significantly lower impact on the biocompatibility indices than the ETO-sterilized F60 and F6 membranes (p < 0.05 or p < 0.001 for the individual markers). We conclude that using steam instead of ETO for sterilization may improve the biocompatibility of membranes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Profound neutropenia during the early phase of hemodialysis


            Author and article information

            S. Karger AG
            February 1998
            26 January 1998
            : 78
            : 2
            : 139-142
            Departments of a Nephrology, and b Hematology, Oncology, and Immunology, Center of Internal Medicine, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany
            44901 Nephron 1998;78:139–142
            © 1998 S. Karger AG, Basel

            Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

            Page count
            Figures: 2, References: 15, Pages: 4
            Self URI (application/pdf):
            Original Paper


            Comment on this article