Dialysis-Related Genotoxicity: Sister Chromatid Exchanges and DNA Lesions in T and B Lymphocytes of Uremic Patients. Genomic Damage in Patients on Hemodiafiltration

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: Patients with chronic renal failure show the presence of massive oxidative genome damage but the role played by dialysis is still a controversial issue. The aim of our study was to verify the genomic damage in B- and T-lymphocyte subpopulations of uremic patients after a single hemodiafiltration session. Methods: We enrolled 30 patients on maintenance acetate-free biofiltration and 25 age-matched healthy volunteers and studied chromosomal alterations. Results: Our data show that the basal levels of DNA damage, the number of sister chromatid exchanges and basal high-frequency cells levels are significantly higher in patients on hemodiafiltration than in controls and in T lymphocytes than in B cells. Conclusions: These findings suggest that hemodialytic treatment could represent a potential source of damage, maybe through the oxidative action of the extracorporeal circuit components, which might explain the well-known T-specific immunodeficiency correlated with uremia.

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Poor long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients on long-term dialysis.

Joseph Collins, Jianjie Ma, C Herzog (1998)

Cardiovascular disease is common in patients on long-term dialysis, and it accounts for 44 percent of overall mortality in this group. We undertook a study to assess long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients in the United States who were receiving long-term dialysis. Patients on dialysis who were hospitalized during the period from 1977 to 1995 for a first myocardial infarction after the initiation of renal-replacement therapy were retrospectively identified from the U.S. Renal Data System data base. Overall mortality and mortality from cardiac causes (including all in-hospital deaths) were estimated by the life-table method. The effect of independent predictors on survival was examined in a Cox regression model with adjustment for existing illnesses. The overall mortality (+/-SE) after acute myocardial infarction among 34,189 patients on long-term dialysis was 59.3+/-0.3 percent at one year, 73.0+/-0.3 percent at two years, and 89.9+/-0.2 percent at five years. The mortality from cardiac causes was 40.8+/-0.3 percent at one year, 51.8+/-0.3 percent at two years, and 70.2+/-0.4 percent at five years. Patients who were older or had diabetes had higher mortality than patients without these characteristics. Adverse outcomes occurred even in patients who had acute myocardial infarction in 1990 through 1995. Also, the mortality rate after myocardial infarction was considerably higher for patients on long-term dialysis than for renal-transplant recipients. Patients on dialysis who have acute myocardial infarction have high mortality from cardiac causes and poor long-term survival.

0 comments Cited 99 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Differential giemsa staining of sister chromatids and the study of sister chromatid exchanges without autoradiography

Sheldon Wolff, Paul Perry (1974)

0 comments Cited 42 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hepatitis B vaccine in patients receiving hemodialysis. Immunogenicity and efficacy.

Anthony Stevens, W Szmuness, H Alter … (1984)

We evaluated the immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine (Heptavax-B) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 1311 patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States. After three doses of vaccine (40 micrograms each) had been administered, 63 per cent of the patients were antibody-positive. After correction for possible passive transfer of antibodies by blood transfusion, only 50 per cent of vaccine recipients were considered vaccine responders. The incidence of hepatitis B viral infection during the 25 months of the trial was much lower than had been anticipated and was virtually the same in the vaccine and placebo recipients (6.4 and 5.4 per cent, respectively). Four cases of hepatitis B occurred in patients who had an apparent antibody response to the vaccine, but in each case either antibody had reached low or undetectable levels before hepatitis B surface antigen was detected or the patient had been receiving immunosuppressive therapy. This study did not demonstrate the efficacy of the vaccine in a population of patients receiving dialysis in whom both the rate of antibody response to hepatitis B vaccine and the viral attack rate were low. Other measures to control transmission of hepatitis B virus in dialysis units, including surveillance for hepatitis B surface antigen and isolation of patients who are positive for the antigen, must be continued.

0 comments Cited 25 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): BPU

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Blood Purif

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.0253-5068

Title: Blood Purification

Publisher: S. Karger AG

ISSN (Print): 0253-5068

ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9735

Publication date Subscription-year: 2006

Publication date (Print): December 2006

Publication date (Electronic): 21 December 2006

Volume: 24

Issue: 5-6

Pages: 569-574

Affiliations

^aChair of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, ^bDepartment of Medicina sociale e del Territorio-Medicina del Lavoro, and ^cDepartment of Surgical Science, Unit of Microbiology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

Article

Publisher ID: 97080 Other ID: Blood Purif 2006;24:569–574

DOI: 10.1159/000097080

PubMed ID: 17124425

License:

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.