0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Comparison of Blood Loss with Different High-Flux and High-Efficiency Hemodialysis Membranes

      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

          Iron deficiency is a common problem in patients on chronic HD. Earlier studies have shown significant blood loss per HD session. To identify whether the new more biocompatible high-flux or high-efficiency membranes are also responsible for significant blood loss during HD, we quantitated the amount of blood loss associated with 4 commonly used membranes (F-50, F-80, CA-210, and CT-190). The residual blood in each compartment of extracorporeal circuit was quantitated after total lysis of the red blood cells (RBC), hemoglobin assay, and calculation of the RBC volume using the patient’s hemoglobin and hematocrit concentrations just prior to the study. The average residual RBC volume in different membranes was 0.2–0.3 ml. The residual RBC volume in the dialysis lines (arterial or venous) was 0.1–0.2 ml and did not correlate with the residual RBC volume in the dialysis membranes. The residual RBC volume in the whole extracorporeal circuit (HD membrane, arterial and venous lines) ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 ml. It was significantly higher with F-50 vs. CA-210. The residual RBC volume in the dialysis membrane was significantly higher in the F-80 vs. CA-210 and CT-190 dialyzers. There was also significant difference in the residual RBC volume in the arterial lines of F-50 vs. CT-190, and F-50 vs. F-80 dialyzers. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate for the first time that the total RBC loss per HD session is minimal in chronic HD patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 2

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

          Gastrointestinal telangiectasias. A source of bleeding in patients receiving hemodialysis.

          Endoscopy was used over a five-year period to determine the cause of acute or chronic gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding in 46 patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Nine (19%) of the patients were found to be bleeding from telangiectasias. We observed the occurrence of such lesions in the stomach, the small bowel, and the colon. Endoscopic cauterization of the lesions in three patients and jejunal resection in another stopped previously recurrent GI tract bleeding.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Four new coil hemodialyzers. Comparison of dialysance, ultrafiltration, and erythrocyte recovery

             R. MUTH (1969)
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Journal
              AJN
              Am J Nephrol
              10.1159/issn.0250-8095
              American Journal of Nephrology
              S. Karger AG
              0250-8095
              1421-9670
              2001
              February 2001
              12 March 2001
              : 21
              : 1
              : 16-19
              Affiliations
              Division of Nephrology, Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center, St. Louis, Mo., USA
              Article
              46213 Am J Nephrol 2001;21:16–19
              10.1159/000046213
              11275627
              © 2001 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: 2, References: 23, Pages: 4
              Product
              Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/46213
              Categories
              Clinical Study

              Comments

              Comment on this article