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

      Direct Dialysis Quantification: Investigation of the Impact of Dialysate Preservation Techniques on Solute Assays

      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.


          Aims: Urease-producing microorganisms may lower urea nitrogen (UN) during dialysate-side dosing. We investigated the impact of 3 proven preservatives (acetic acid, ceftazidime, thimerosal) on UN concentration, and the concentrations of creatinine (CR) and β<sub>2</sub>-microglobulin (β<sub>2</sub>M). Methods: The UN, CR and β<sub>2</sub>M concentrations were assayed in 3 separate aliquots from 20 spent dialysate samples (ceftazidime, 125 mg/l, or 1% thimerosal, 1 ml/l, vs. control). The β<sub>2</sub>M concentration was assayed in 10 further spent dialysate collections (concentrated glacial acetic acid, 5 ml/l, vs. control). Solute concentrations were compared with the concordance correlation coefficient (r<sub>c</sub>). Results: Ceftazidime and thimerosal had little effect on the concentrations of UN and CR (r<sub>c</sub> >0.97). For the β<sub>2</sub>M concentration, agreement remained good (r<sub>c</sub> >0.96) for ceftazidime and thimerosal (although the former tended to lower concentrations) but acetic acid was less optimal (r<sub>c</sub> = 0.893). Conclusions: Ceftazidime and thimerosal may be used as dialysate preservatives without affecting the UN or CR concentrations. Thimerosal is to be preferred when studying β<sub>2</sub>M. Acetic acid produces unacceptable inaccuracy when measuring β<sub>2</sub>M.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 7

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

          Precise quantification of dialysis using continuous sampling of spent dialysate and total dialysate volume measurement.

          The "gold standard" method to evaluate the mass balances achieved during dialysis for a given solute remains total dialysate collection (TDC). However, since handling over 100 liter volumes is unfeasible in our current dialysis units, alternative methods have been proposed, including urea kinetic modeling, partial dialysate collection (PDC) and more recently, monitoring of dialysate urea by on-line devices. Concerned by the complexity and costs generated by these devices, we aimed to adapt the simple "gold standard" TDC method to clinical practice by diminishing the total volumes to be handled. We describe a new system based on partial dialysate collection, the continuous spent sampling of dialysate (CSSD), and present its technical validation. Further, and for the first time, we report a long-term assessment of dialysis dosage in a dialysis clinic using both the classical PDC and the new CSSD system in a group of six stable dialysis patients who were followed for a period of three years. For the CSSD technique, spent dialysate was continuously sampled by a reversed automatic infusion pump at a rate of 10 ml/hr. The piston was automatically driven by the dialysis machine: switched on when dialysis started, off when dialysis terminated and held during the by pass periods. At the same time the number of production cycles of dialysate was monitored and the total volume of dialysate was calculated by multiplying the volume of the production chamber by the number of cycles. Urea and creatinine concentrations were measured in the syringe and the masses were obtained by multiplying this concentration by the total volume. CSSD and TDC were simultaneously performed in 20 dialysis sessions. The total mass of urea removed was calculated as 58038 and 60442 mmol/session (CSSD and TDC respectively; 3.1 +/- 1.2% variation; r = 0.99; y = 0.92x -28.9; P < 0.001). The total mass of creatinine removed was 146,941,143 and 150,071,195 mumol/session (2.2 +/- 0.9% variation; r = 0.99; y = 0.99x + 263; P < 0.001). To determine the long-term clinical use of PDC and CSSD, all the dialysis sessions monitored during three consecutive summers with PDC (during 1993 and 1994) and with CSSD (1995) in six stable dialysis patients were included. The clinical study comparing PDC and CSSD showed similar urea removal: 510 +/- 59 during the first year with PDC and 516 +/- 46 mmol/dialysis session during the third year, using CSSD. Protein catabolic rate (PCR) could be calculated from total urea removal and was 1.05 +/- 0.11 and 1.05 +/- 0.09 g/kg/day with PDC and CSSD for the same periods. PCR values were clearly more stable when calculated from the daily dialysate collections than when obtained with urea kinetic modeling performed once monthly. We found that CSSD is a simple and accurate method to monitor mass balances of urea or any other solute of clinical interest. With CSSD, dialysis efficacy can be monitored at every dialysis session without the need for bleeding a patient. As it is external to the dialysis machine, it can be attached to any type of machine with a very low cost. The sample of dialysate is easy to handle, since it is already taken in a syringe that is sent directly to the laboratory. The CSSD system is currently in routine use in our unit and has demonstrated its feasibility, low cost and high clinical interest in monitoring dialysis patients.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Microbial and Endotoxin Contamination in Water and Dialysate in the Central United States

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

              Contamination of Dialysis Water and Dialysate


                Author and article information

                Blood Purif
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                November 2004
                17 November 2004
                : 22
                : 5
                : 435-439
                aSection of Dialysis and Extracorporeal Therapy, Department of Hypertension/Nephrology, bSection of Biochemistry, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and cDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                80727 Blood Purif 2004;22:435–439
                © 2004 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: 1, Tables: 1, References: 23, Pages: 5
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/80727
                Original Paper


                Comment on this article