8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Iohexol Transmembrane Clearance during Modeled Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Background/Aims: Urea clearance during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is not representative of middle molecular weight solute clearances. We aimed to characterize iohexol, molecular weight 821 Da, clearance during continuous hemofiltration (CH) and continuous hemodialysis (CHD). Methods: Using an in vitro model, iohexol sieving coefficients (SC) and saturation coefficients (SA) were determined with the M100 membrane at ultrafiltration/dialysate rates of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 l/h. Iohexol transmembrane clearance was calculated using the measured SC and SA. Results: During CH, the value of iohexol SC remained approximately 1 at all ultrafiltration rates studied. In contrast, during CHD iohexol the mean SA was 1.02 ± 0.05 at a dialysate rate 1 l/h and decreased significantly with higher dialysate rates to a mean SA of 0.57 ± 0.12 at a dialysate rate of 6 l/h. Conclusions: At higher effluent flow rates, CH was more effective in removing iohexol than CHD. CH transmembrane clearance of iohexol appears to approximate the ultrafiltration rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

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

          Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial.

          Continuous veno-venous haemofiltration is increasingly used to treat acute renal failure in critically ill patients, but a clear definition of an adequate treatment dose has not been established. We undertook a prospective randomised study of the impact different ultrafiltration doses in continuous renal replacement therapy on survival. We enrolled 425 patients, with a mean age of 61 years, in intensive care who had acute renal failure. Patients were randomly assigned ultrafiltration at 20 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 1, n=146), 35 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 2, n=139), or 45 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 3, n=140). The primary endpoint was survival at 15 days after stopping haemofiltration. We also assessed recovery of renal function and frequency of complications during treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. Survival in group 1 was significantly lower than in groups 2 (p=0.0007) and 3 (p=0.0013). Survival in groups 2 and 3 did not differ significantly (p=0.87). Adjustment for possible confounding factors did not change the pattern of differences among the groups. Survivors in all groups had lower concentrations of blood urea nitrogen before continuous haemofiltration was started than non-survivors. 95%, 92%, and 90% of survivors in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, had full recovery of renal function. The frequency of complications was similarly low in all groups. Mortality among these critically ill patients was high, but increase in the rate of ultrafiltration improved survival significantly. We recommend that ultrafiltration should be prescribed according to patient's bodyweight and should reach at least 35 mL h(-1) kg(-1).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adding a dialysis dose to continuous hemofiltration increases survival in patients with acute renal failure.

            Acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients is associated with high mortality. Optimal method and dose of continuous renal replacement therapy could improve survival in these patients. We studied the hypothesis that an increase in dialysis dose obtained by continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) is associated with a better survival than continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) among critically ill patients with ARF. In a prospective randomized trial, these two methods were compared in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy in two intensive care units (ICUs). The patients had either CVVH (1-2.5 l/h replacement fluid) or continuous CVVHDF (1-2.5 l/h replacement fluid+1-1.5 l/h dialysate) according to their body weight. 28- and 90-day mortalities, renal recovery, and duration of ICU stay were the main outcome measures. Two hundred and six patients were randomized from October 2000 to December 2003. Twenty-eight-day survivals (%) were, respectively, 39 and 59 (P=0.03) in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups. Three months survivals (%) were, respectively, 34 and 59 (P=0.0005) in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups. Apache II score, age, baseline blood urea nitrogen, and hemodiafiltration (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.87; P=0.008) were independent predictors of survival at 90 days. Renal recovery rate among survivors (71 versus 78% in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups respectively, P=0.62) was not affected by the type of renal replacement therapy. These results suggest that increasing the dialysis dose especially for low molecular weight solutes confers a better survival in severely ill patients with ARF.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Diffusive and convective solute clearances during continuous renal replacement therapy at various dialysate and ultrafiltration flow rates

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BPU
                Blood Purif
                10.1159/issn.0253-5068
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                0253-5068
                1421-9735
                2015
                May 2015
                04 March 2015
                : 39
                : 1-3
                : 188-192
                Affiliations
                aCollege of Pharmacy and bSchool of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M., USA
                Author notes
                *A. Mary Vilay, PharmD, MSC 09 5360, University of New Mexico College of Pharmacy, 2502 Marble Avenue NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (USA), E-Mail mvilay@salud.unm.edu
                Article
                371755 Blood Purif 2015;39:188-192
                10.1159/000371755
                25765443
                784c319c-4fcf-40d1-aa75-6e4b8c7d7179
                © 2015 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.

                History
                : 25 September 2014
                : 23 December 2014
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, References: 23, Pages: 5
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Iohexol,Continuous hemodialysis,Continuous hemofiltration
                Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology
                Iohexol, Continuous hemodialysis, Continuous hemofiltration

                Comments

                Comment on this article