Im
Joined: 14 Feb 2003
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:07 am Post subject: REUSE
Effect of dialyzer reuse on survival of patients treated with hemodialysis. <
>Feldman HI, Kinosian M, Bilker WB, Simmons C, Holmes JH, Pauly MV, Escarce JJ. <
>Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia 19104-6021, USA. <
>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of dialyzer reuse on the survival of US hemodialysis patients. <
>STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Nonconcurrent cohort study of 27938 patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987. <
>MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient survival. <
>RESULTS: Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with the combination of peracetic and acetic acids was associated with greater mortality than treatment in facilities not reprocessing dialyzers (rate ratio [RR],1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.18; P=.02) In contrast, there was no significant difference between survival in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either formaldehyde (RR,1.03, 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P=.45) or glutaraldehyde (RR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.95-1.35, P=.1 and survival in freestanding facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. Among freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers, use of peracetic/acetic acid was associated with a higher rate of death than use of formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P=.02). There was no statistical difference between survival in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either peracetic/acetic acid (RR=0.95, 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P=.40), formaldehyde (RR=1.06, 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; P=.12), or glutaraldehyde (RR=1.09, 95% CI, 0.71-1.67; P=.70) and survival in hospital-based facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. In addition, choice of sterilant was not associated with a statistically significant difference in survival among hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers.<
> <
>CONCLUSIONS:
Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acid may be associated with worse survival than dialysis in free-standing facilities not reprocessing dialyzers or in those reprocessing with formaldehyde. We were unable to determine whether these relationships arose from greater comorbidity among patients treated in facilities using peracetic/acetic acid, poor quality of dialysis procedures in these facilities, or direct toxicity of peracetic/acetic acid. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable mortality among US hemodialysis patients treated in dialysis facilities reprocessing hemodialyzers.<
>
*********************************************************************************
starting
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:09 am Post subject: REUSE
Septicemia in dialysis patients: incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. <
>Powe NR, Jaar B, Furth SL, Hermann J, Briggs W. <
>Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. npowe@jhmi.edu<
> <
>BACKGROUND: Infection is second to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and septicemia causes a majority of these infectious deaths. To identify patients at high risk and to characterize modifiable risk factors for septicemia, we examined the incidence, risk factors, and prognosis for septicemia in a large, representative group of U.S. dialysis patients. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of incident ESRD patients in the case-mix study of the U.S. Renal Data System with seven years of follow-up from hospitalization and death records. Poisson regression was used to examine independent risk factors for hospital-managed septicemia. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to assess the independent effect of septicemia on all-cause mortality and on death from septicemia. Separate analyses were performed for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD). RESULTS: Over seven years of follow-up, 11.7% of 4005 HD patients and 9.4% of 913 PD patients had at least one episode of septicemia.
Older age and diabetes were independent risk factors for septicemia in all patients. Among HD patients, low serum albumin, temporary vascular access, and dialyzer reuse were also associated with increased risk. Among PD patients, white race and having no health insurance at dialysis initiation were also risk factors. Patients with septicemia had twice the risk of death from any cause and a fivefold to ninefold increased risk of death from septicemia. CONCLUSIONS: Septicemia, which carries a marked increased risk of death, occurs frequently in patients on PD as well as HD. Early referral to a nephrologist, improving nutrition, and avoiding temporary vascular access may decrease the incidence of septicemia. Further study of how race, insurance status, and dialyzer reuse can contribute to the risk of septicemia among ESRD patients is indicated.<
>
*********************************************************************************
to
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 3
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:11 am Post subject: REUSE
Association of dialyzer reuse and hospitalization rates among hemodialysis patients in the US. <
>Feldman HI, Bilker WB, Hackett M, Simmons CW, Holmes JH, Pauly MV, Escarce JJ.<
> <
>Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. <
>OBJECTIVES: To determine if reuse of hemodialyzers is associated with higher rates of hospitalization and their resulting costs among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. METHODS: Noncurrent cohort study of hospitalization rates among 27,264 ESRD patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987. RESULTS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers was associated with a greater rate of hospitalization than in facilities not reprocessing (relative rate (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.14).
This higher rate of hospitalization was observed with dialyzer reuse using peracetic/acetic acids (RR = 1.11, CI 1. 04-1.1 and formaldehyde (RR = 1.07, CI 1.00-1.14), but not glutaraldehyde (p = 0.97). There was no difference among hospitalization rates in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with any sterilant and those not reprocessing. Hospitalization for causes other than vascular access morbidity in free-standing facilities reusing dialyzers with formaldehyde was not different from hospitalization in facilities not reusing. However, reuse with peracetic/acetic acids was associated with higher rates of hospitalization than formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, CI 1.03-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acids or formaldehyde was associated with greater hospitalization than dialysis without dialyzer reprocessing. This greater hospitalization accounts for a large increment in inpatient stays in the USA. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable morbidity among hemodialysis patients.<
>Copyright 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel<
><
>
*********************************************************************************
miss
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:13 am Post subject: REUSE
Dialyzer reuse: what we know and what we don't know. <
>Despite extensive clinical experience, the effects of different reuse procedures have not been fully evaluated. The available data suggest that the effect of reuse on dialyzer performance depends upon the type of chemicals employed, the mem
ane type, and the size of the solute whose removal is being assessed. The effect of reuse on urea clearance is essentially defined by the residual cell volume with a total cell volume of > 80% associated with a dialyzer clearance that is within 10% of its original value.
The effect of reuse on large solute clearance can be dramatic, with the procedure resulting in substantial changes in the beta2-microglobulin clearance of different dialyzers. Of note is the limited data available regarding the effect of reuse procedures on dialyzers processed more than 20 times.<
><
>
*********************************************************************************
those
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:15 am Post subject: REUSE
An outbreak of pyrogenic reactions in chronic hemodialysis patients associated with hemodialyzer reuse.Rudnick JR, Arduino MJ, Bland LA, Cusick L, McAllister SK, Aguero SM, Jarvis WR.
Investigation and Prevention Branch, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
In February 1992, 22 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis at an outpatient dialysis center experienced pyrogenic reactions (PR). The PR rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) during the epidemic (February 3-5) than the pre-epidemic period (November 1, 1992-February 1, 1992). All patients with PR used dialyzers that had been manually reprocessed either on February 1 or 3. These dialyzers contained up to 120.8 EU/ml of endotoxin in the blood compartment. The only dialyzer reprocessed before February 1 that was available for analysis was found to contain no detectable endotoxin, while dialyzers reprocessed during the epidemic period contained a median endotoxin concentration of 52.8 EU/ml. The bioburden of water used to prepare dialysate was in excess of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standard for water, < or = 200 colony forming units (CFU)/ml. Samples of treated water collected in the reuse area were within AAMI standards at the time of the investigation (February 11 and February 26), but before the investigation, water samples were assayed with a culture method that could not detect microbial concentrations below 10(3) CFU/ml. In addition, the treated water feed line to the disinfectant container may never have been disinfected. However, no samples were collected from this line during the investigation. This outbreak emphasizes the need to use water that meets the AAMI bacteriologic and endotoxin standards of < or = to 200 CFU/ml and/or 5 EU/ml, respectively, for reprocessing hemodialyzers nad to ensure that appropriate culture techniques are used for treated water dialysate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7598647*********************************************************************************
articles
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:19 am Post subject: REUSE
Dilemma of mem
ane biocompatibility and reuse. <
>Klinkmann H, Grassmann A, Vienken J <
>International Faculty for Artificial Organs, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K.<
> <
>Numerous articles have been published on the multiple use of dialyzers and on the effect of different reprocessing chemicals and techniques on the dialyzer biocompatibility and performance. The results often appear contradictory, especially those comparing standard biocompatibility parameters. Despite this confusion, a discerning review of the published works allows certain limited conclusions to be drawn. Reprocessing of used hemodialyzers changes the biocompatibility profile of a dialyzer as defined by the parameters complement activation, leukopenia, and cytokine release. The effect of reprocessing depends on the chemicals and reprocessing technique applied and also on the type of mem
ane polymer being subjected to the reprocessing procedure. Reports of pyrogenic reactions indicate that the flux of the mem
ane also influences how suitable it is for safe reuse.
An increased risk of allergic and pyrogenic reactions appears to be associated with dialyzer reuse. Furthermore, there has been a lack of investigations into the immunologic effect of the layer of adsorbed and chemically altered proteins that remains on the inner surface of reprocessed dialyzers. We conclude that the clinical benefit of dialyzer reuse cannot be generally accepted from a biocompatibility point of view.<
>
