Effect of Dialysate-Side Mass Transfer Resistance on Small Solute Removal in Hemodialysis

Uremic toxicity is mediated by the retention of numerous types of solutes [1]. Characteristics which vary among uremic toxins include molecular weight, degree of protein binding, volume of distribution, and charge. The most widely studied group of uremic toxins is the low-molecular weight (MW) nitrogenous waste products. One of the most prominent characteristics of molecules in this toxin class is high diffusivity [2], largely explained by their low MW and lack of protein binding. Although not necessarily toxic per se in their free form, urea and creatinine serve as surrogate molecules for this class. The kinetic characteristics of urea during hemodialysis (HD) have been particularly widely studied and an abundant amount of recent clinical data from the United States indicates the extent of urea removal during HD, expressed as either treatment dose (Kt/V) or reduction ratio, is directly proportional to survival [3]. Therefore, a clear understanding by clinicians of the determinants of small solute mass transfer during HD is required. Overview of Diffusive Mass Transfer in Hemodialysis

[1]  C. Ronco,et al.  Haemodialysers and Associated Devices , 1996 .

[2]  K. Jindal,et al.  A study of the basic principles determining the performance of several high-flux dialyzers. , 1989, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[3]  J T Daugirdas,et al.  Hemodialyzer mass transfer-area coefficients for urea increase at high dialysate flow rates. The Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study. , 1997, Kidney international.

[4]  B. Tersteegen,et al.  Clearance of a dialyzer under varying operating conditions. , 1986, Artificial organs.

[5]  A. Michaels Operating parameters and performance criteria for hemodialyzers and other membrane-separation devices. , 1966, Transactions - American Society for Artificial Internal Organs.

[6]  M J Lysaght,et al.  Effect of membrane composition and structure on solute removal and biocompatibility in hemodialysis. , 1999, Kidney international.

[7]  C Ronco,et al.  Impact of Spacing Filaments External to Hollow Fibers on Dialysate flow Distribution and Dialyzer Performance , 1997, The International journal of artificial organs.

[8]  P Keshaviah,et al.  Urea index and other predictors of hemodialysis patient survival. , 1994, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[9]  M. Kuhlmann,et al.  In vivo effects of dialysate flow rate on Kt/V in maintenance hemodialysis patients. , 2000, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[10]  Frank A. Gotch,et al.  Principles and Biophysics of Dialysis , 1996 .

[11]  Michaels As,et al.  Operating parameters and performance criteria for hemodialyzers and other membrane-separation devices. , 1966 .

[12]  D. Parker,et al.  Flow distributions in hollow fiber hemodialyzers using magnetic resonance Fourier velocity imaging. , 1995, ASAIO journal.

[13]  R. Vanholder,et al.  Pathophysiologic effects of uremic retention solutes. , 1999, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[14]  W. Clark,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a new high efficiency hemodialyzer: polysynthane. , 1999 .

[15]  John K Leypoldt,et al.  Effect of Low Dialysate Flow Rate on Hemodialyzer Mass Transfer Area Coefficients for Urea and Creatinine. , 1999, Home hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis.