11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ultrapure Dialysis Fluid: A New Standard for Contemporary Hemodialysis

      editorial
      1 , * , 1
      Nephro-urology monthly
      Kowsar
      Renal Dialysis, Renal Replacement Therapy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          1. Introduction The concept of renal replacement therapy (RRT) has evolved considerably over the last 2 decades. Dialysis, a key component of RRT intended to clear uremic toxins and periodically restore the internal milieu composition, has benefited from considerable advances in dialysis technology (bicarbonate-buffered dialysis fluid, ultrafiltration-controlled systems, profiling systems, blood volume and temperature control, direct quantification, and high-flux dialyzers) and innovative adjunctive drug therapies designed to correct anemia (erythropoietinstimulating agents (ESA), IV iron, etc.), metabolic bone disease (vitamin D and analogs, calcimimetics, etc.), and associated metabolic disorders (lipid-lowering agents, antioxidants, etc.) (1). Such refinement in optimizing RRT would have not been possible without intense and collaborative clinical research, which led to a better understanding of uremic complications and improvement in the standards of care for chronic kidney disease patients (2). Despite these medical and technical advances, it is disappointing to note that morbidity and mortality still remain high in dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients (3). Most recent studies have noted that the dialysis population has changed over the last decade, characterized by patients who are older and suffer from multiple comorbid conditions, including diabetes and cardiovascular diseases that compromise patient outcomes (4). Indeed, it has also been shown that chronic microinflammation represents the common link and amplifying factor to such dialysis-related pathology (5, 6). In this interesting debate, it is strange to note that the nephrology community has overlooked the microbial purity of dialysis fluid while technical solutions to correct impure dialysis fluid have been available for 2 decades (7, 8). This study is intent on supporting the use of ultrapure dialysis fluid (UPDF) in all hemodialysis (HD) modalities and showing that UPDF is technically and economically feasible in most dialysis facilities worldwide. (9, 10). 2. UPDF as a Surrogate for Sterile and Non-Pyrogenic Dialysis Fluid The term “ultrapure” was coined in the early 80s to underline the fact that dialysis fluid solutions (water and dialysis fluid) were highly purified in comparison to standard procedures and were used as a surrogate for sterile and non-pyrogenic fluid (11). UPDF was defined as containing < 0.1 colony-forming unit/ml (CFU/ml) using sensitive microbiological methods and < 0.03 endotoxin unit/ml (EU/ml) using the limulus amoebocyte lysate (lAl) assay. This definition is now widely accepted and used for UPDF determination in international guidelines. A summary of microbiological standards for water and dialysis fluids in HD is given in Table 1. Table 1 Microbiological Standards for Water and Dialysis Fluid Purity Standard Water Standard Dialysate Ultrapure Water Ultrapure Dialysate Sterile Dialysate Bacterial limits a, CFU/mL < 100-200 < 100-200 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 10-6 Endotoxin limits b, EU/mL < 0.25-2 < 0.25 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 aAdequate monitoring and microbiological technique (i.e. UPDF,poor media TGEA, R2A,17-23ºC,7 days) bSensitive LAL assay, threshold detection limit , 0.03 EU/mL 3. UPDF is Easily Produced by Online Cold Sterilization Technical aspects of producing UPDF have been described in detail elsewhere (12). UPDF relies on 3 basic principles: use of ultrapure water; installation of sterilizing ultrafilters (1 or 2) in the dialysis fluid pathway on adequately designed HD machines; and implementation of strict hygienic rules (disinfection procedures and ultrafilter changes) and regular microbiological monitoring (13). Figure 1 presents the concept of the cold sterilization process based on tangential ultrafiltration. Figure 2 shows HD machines equipped with ultrafilters installed in series, designed to ensure a final cold sterilization of the dialysis fluid flowing into the patient’s hemodialyzer. Figure 1 Cold Sterilization Process Based on Ultrafiltration Figure 2 HD Machine Equipped With Sterilizing Ultrafilters 4. UPDF is Justified by Operative Conditions of Contemporary Dialysis HD has emerged as a leading component of this innovation. hemodialyzer membranes have improved in performance, resulting in a major increase in solute removal capacities for both small and middle molecules (high-flux membranes), and a significant improvement in biocompatibility (synthetic high-flux membranes) (14). hemodialyzer performance has also improved, thanks to new geometry designs favoring back-transport phenomena and convective clearance imposed by ultrafiltration controller systems installed onto dialysis machines (15). Along these lines, the microbiological purity of dialysis fluid has become a critical component, recognized as a key element in the HD biocompatibility network (16). Standards of purity for water and dialysis fluid established in the 70s were later recognized as being poorly adapted to the setting of contemporary HD conditions (17). A recent transcontinental agreement (Europe, US, Japan) has recognized the need to upgrade water and dialysis fluid purity for all dialysis modalities. For this purpose, guidelines supporting the regular use of UPDF for all HD modalities and editing handling and hygienic rules have been established (18-20). Beneficial effects of regular use of UPDF are seen in intermediate and long-term outcomes in dialysis patients (21). 5. UPDF Prevents Inflammation and Its Deleterious Biological and Clinical Consequences Intermediate outcomes are mainly related to the preventive and/or anti-inflammatory effects associated with the regular use of UPDF (22). Several controlled and/or randomized studies have demonstrated that UPDF use was accompanied by a decrease in sensitive inflammatory markers (21) and sustained reduction of chronic inflammation (23) in HD patients. Interestingly, correction of the microinflammatory state is associated with better correction of anemia and decreased requirements for ESA)(24-26), suggesting better ESA responsiveness (27, 28). In addition, the use of UPDF is associated with a reduction in plasma levels of beta-2 microglobulin and pentosidine (29). Myeloperoxidase activity and lipid profile tend to improve in parallel with CRP reduction in patients exposed to UPDF (30-32). Monocyte activation and apoptosis and the release of inflammatory factors are reduced with the use of UPDF (33). In addition, oxidative stress is minimized with the combination of high-flux membrane and UPDF (34). Residual renal function is better preserved over a 24-month period in the UPDF-treated group, as shown in a randomized controlled trial (35, 36). Nutritional status and visceral protein levels improved significantly in a UPDF-treated group, compared to their counterparts treated with conventional (contaminated) dialysis fluid (37, 38). 6. UPDF Reduces Morbidity and Mortality in HD Patients Beneficial effects of UPDF on morbidity and mortality of dialysis patients are more difficult to ascertain because there are several confounding factors (39). The use of synthetic high-flux membranes and enhanced convective clearance by online hemodiafiltration (ol-HDF) facilitating the removal of middle- and large-molecular-weight uremic toxins are the two most prominent factors (40, 41). Indeed, using UPDF with more efficient modalities (ol-HDF or high-flux HD) should not be considered exclusion criteria but rather an incentive, and there is strong support for its generalization in dialysis (21). The use of UPDF is associated with significant reduction in morbidity (42) and cardiovascular events (43). In addition, in a recent randomized controlled trial, locatelli et al. have shown that by combining the use of UPDF and convective therapies (HF and HDF), the incidence of hypotensive episodes could be significantly reduced (44). Interestingly, 2 retrospective cohort studies have reported a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of beta-2 microglobulin amyloidosis, as revealed by carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, with extended use of UPDF and synthetic membranes (26, 45). One study also reported significant improvement in the painful and disabling symptomatology of beta-2 microglobulin amyloidosis after switching conventional dialysate with UPDF (46). In a retrospective cohort study, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was decreased (47) in dialysis patients mainly exposed to UPDF. ol-HDF, which represents the most advanced dialysis modality and requires the use of UPDF, is associated with better outcomes for dialysis patients. In most recent cohort studies, the use of high-efficiency (high-volume) HDF was associated with a relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality averaging 35% (48, 49). Interestingly, cardiovascular mortality was particularly reduced in 2 recent studies underlining the potential beneficial effects of UPDF and convective therapies on the vascular disease of dialysis patients (50, 51). All these studies underlined the fact that ultrapurity of the dialysis fluid was the common factor of improvement, mediated through a reduction of the chronic microinflammatory status of dialysis patients. 7. UPDF is Technically and Economically Feasible for All Dialysis Facilities Several reports have shown that UPDF was accessible and affordable in most dialysis centers (52). In this perspective, the recent intermediary analysis of the CoN-TRAST study is the most significant (53). Ten dialysis facilities were selected for conducting the water and dialysis fluid microbiological audit. Precise and sensitive microbial monitoring of water and dialysis fluid, including bacteriometry (nutrient-poor media (R2A) culture over 7 days) and endotoxin content (limulus amoebocyte lysate using a chromogenic method), were performed monthly over the 2-year period of follow-up. of the 3961 dialysis fluid samples, 99.1% complied with the ultrapurity standard as defined by European Best Practice Guidelines and Dutch guidelines. No side effects or pyrogenic effects were noted in 97 patients who received 11258 ol-HDF sessions. In brief, this study confirms that UPDF may be easily produced on a country-wide scale and used in virtually all contemporary dialysis facilities. Economic issues associated with the regular use of UPDF should not be ignored and kept under a veil of silence. The production of ultrapure water requires a water treatment system (WTS), including pretreatment (softener, activated carbon, microfiltration), a water polishing system (based on a double reverse-osmosis system in series), and a well-designed distribution loop (ensuring permanent circulation of water with immediate delivery to dialysis machines). Disinfection processes (type, agent, and frequency) and microbiological monitoring of WTS are established according to contamination levels and facility practices. HD machines should be equipped with captive ultrafilters, ensuring a final cold sterilization of the dialysis fluid produced. HD machines are disinfected after each run and ultrafilters are replaced according to manufacturer recommendations. Microbiological monitoring of dialysis fluid is performed periodically according to local and regulatory practices. Considering the fact that ultrapure water is a standard for newly created dialysis facilities in Europe, the only additional cost is associated with the periodic changes of sterilizing ultrafilters installed on the HD machines and the microbiological monitoring of dialysis fluids. Based on a rigorous cost analysis conducted over the last 5 years in our units, we estimated this extra cost at 5 euros per session. The additional costs generated by this high standard of water and dialysis fluid purity are offset by direct and indirect clinical benefits, including better correction of anemia with reduced ESA, and improved patient outcomes with reduced morbidity and hospitalization rates (46). It would be interesting to conduct an economic prospective study on HD patients treated with UPDF to precisely evaluate cost savings in terms of ESA dose, nutritional improvement, and hospitalization reduction. 8. UPDF Will Be the Basic Requirement for Developing Innovative Dialysis Modalities for Future Renal Replacement Therapy In the perspective of developing or improving future dialysis methods, such as ol-HDF (enhanced internal HDF, hemofiltration, etc.), automated dialysis machines ensuring dialyzer priming and rinsing (home and/or self-care machines), and biofeedback-controlled machines (pulse IV infusion, volume control, etc.), it seems obvious that UPDF will be a basic resource for such development. Considering the high-quality refinement of dialysis fluids, we must deduce that UPDF offers a more efficient barrier against proinflammatory biological reactions, at no risk to dialysis patients. To conclude, UPDF must be considered a basic component of contemporary HD therapy for preventing chronic inflammation and improving patient outcomes in high-flux HD. The use of UPDF is an additional step required to develop ol-HDF and related innovative renal replacement therapies (47).

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

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

          Emerging biomarkers for evaluating cardiovascular risk in the chronic kidney disease patient: how do new pieces fit into the uremic puzzle?

          Premature cardiovascular disease (CVD), including stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden death, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, is a notorious problem in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Because the presence of CVD is independently associated with kidney function decline, it appears that the relationship between CKD and CVD is reciprocal or bidirectional, and that it is this association that leads to the vicious circle contributing to premature death. As randomized, placebo-controlled trials have so far been disappointing and unable to show a survival benefit of various treatment strategies, such a lipid-lowering, increased dialysis dose and normalization of hemoglobin, the risk factor profile seems to be different in CKD compared with the general population. Indeed, seemingly paradoxical associations between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular outcome in patients with advanced CKD have complicated our efforts to identify the real cardiovascular culprits. This review focuses on the many new pieces that need to be fit into the complicated puzzle of uremic vascular disease, including persistent inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and vascular ossification. Each of these is not only highly prevalent in CKD but also more strongly linked to CVD in these patients than in the general population. However, a causal relationship between these new markers and CVD in CKD patients remains to be established. Finally, two novel disciplines, proteomics and epigenetics, will be discussed, because these tools may be helpful in the understanding of the discussed vascular risk factors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association of comorbid conditions and mortality in hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

            Mortality rates among hemodialysis patients vary greatly across regions. Representative databases containing extensive profiles of patient characteristics and outcomes are lacking. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a prospective, observational study of representative samples of hemodialysis patients in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US) that captures extensive data relating to patient characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory values, practice patterns, and outcomes. This report describes the case-mix features and mortality among 16,720 patients followed up to 5 yr. The crude 1-yr mortality rates were 6.6% in Japan, 15.6% in Europe, and 21.7% in the US. After adjusting for age, gender, race, and 25 comorbid conditions, the relative risk (RR) of mortality was 2.84 (P < 0.0001) for Europe compared with Japan (reference group) and was 3.78 (P < 0.0001) for the US compared with Japan. The adjusted RR of mortality for the US versus Europe was 1.33 (P < 0.0001). For most comorbid diseases, prevalence was highest in the US, where the mean age (60.5 +/- 15.5 yr) was also highest. Older age and comorbidities were associated with increased risk of death (except for hypertension, which carried a multivariate RR of mortality of 0.74 [P < 0.0001]). Variability in demographic and comorbid conditions (as identified by dialysis facilities) explains only part of the differences in mortality between dialysis centers, both for comparisons made across continents and within the US. Adjustments for the observed variability will allow study of association between practice patterns and outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recurrent urinary tract infections in children: risk factors and association with prophylactic antimicrobials.

              The evidence regarding risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) and the risks and benefits of antimicrobial prophylaxis in children is scant. To identify risk factors for recurrent UTI in a pediatric primary care cohort, to determine the association between antimicrobial prophylaxis and recurrent UTI, and to identify the risk factors for resistance among recurrent UTIs. From a network of 27 primary care pediatric practices in urban, suburban, and semirural areas spanning 3 states, a cohort of children aged 6 years or younger who were diagnosed with first UTI between July 1, 2001, and May 31, 2006, was assembled. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine risk factors for recurrent UTI and the association between antimicrobial prophylaxis and recurrent UTI, and a nested case-control study was performed among children with recurrent UTI to identify risk factors for resistant infections. Time to recurrent UTI and antimicrobial resistance of recurrent UTI pathogens. Among 74 974 children in the network, 611 (0.007 per person-year) had a first UTI and 83 (0.12 per person-year after first UTI) had a recurrent UTI. In multivariable Cox time-to-event models, factors associated with increased risk of recurrent UTI included white race (0.17 per person-year; hazard ratio [HR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-3.16), age 3 to 4 years (0.22 per person-year; HR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.37-5.51), age 4 to 5 years (0.19 per person-year; HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.19-5.12), and grade 4 to 5 vesicoureteral reflux (0.60 per person-year; HR, 4.38; 95% CI, 1.26-15.29). Sex and grade 1 to 3 vesicoureteral reflux were not associated with risk of recurrence. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was not associated with decreased risk of recurrent UTI (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.50-2.02), even after adjusting for propensity to receive prophylaxis, but was a risk factor for antibimicrobial resistance among children with recurrent UTI (HR, 7.50; 95% CI, 1.60-35.17). Among the children in this study, antimicrobial prophylaxis was not associated with decreased risk of recurrent UTI, but was associated with increased risk of resistant infections.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nephrourol Mon
                Nephrourol Mon
                10.5812/numonthly
                Kowsar
                Nephro-urology monthly
                Kowsar
                2251-7006
                2251-7014
                20 June 2012
                Summer 2012
                : 4
                : 3
                : 519-523
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Nephrology, Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit, Montpellier, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Bernard Canaud, Nephrology, Dialysis and Intensive Care Unit, Lapeyronie University Hospital & Institut de Recherche et Formation en Dialyse, 375, Avenue du Doyen Giraud, 34295 Montpellier, France. Tel.: +334-67338495, Fax: +334-67603783, E-mail: b-canaud@ 123456chumontpellier.fr
                Article
                10.5812/numonthly.3060
                3614300
                23573478
                42bb322d-dc34-40e3-b13f-8bc937a05272
                Copyright © 2012 Kowsar Corp

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 October 2011
                : 15 December 2011
                : 09 January 2012
                Categories
                Editorial

                renal dialysis,renal replacement therapy
                renal dialysis, renal replacement therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article