Effect of High-Flux versus Low-Flux Dialysis on the Rate of Bacteremia in Hemodialysis Patients: A Single Center Study

Main Article Content

Ali Dahouk
Loubna Sinno
Housam Rabah

Keywords

bacteremia, dialyzer, high flux, low flux

Abstract

Bacteremia in dialysis patients is a major risk factor of mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of dialysis with high-flux versus low-flux dialyzer regarding risk of bacteremia in dialysis patients. This was a retrospective cohort study that included dialysis patients who underwent dialysis therapy at old dialysis center where old low-flux dialyzers were used and the new dialysis center where high-flux dialyzers were used. The rate of positive culture was more in high-flux group (37.0%) compared to low-flux group (24.5%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.13). The vascular access was mostly permanent catheter in high-flux group compared to low-flux group (48.9% vs. 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.06), while arteriovenous (AV) fistula was more prominent in low-flux group compared to high-flux group (65.3% vs. 47.8%, respectively; P = 0.06). This was reflected in the type of bacteria, which was mostly from Gram-positive family (Staphylococcus). The results showed higher risk of bacteremia in high-flux group as compared to low-flux group; however, permanent catheters were more prominent in high-flux group.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 210 | PDF Downloads 92 HTML Downloads 29 XML Downloads 64

References

1. Himmelfarb J, Vanholder R, Mehrotra R, Tonelli M. The current and future landscape of dialysis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020 Oct;16(10):573–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-020-0315-4
2. Suzuki M, Satoh N, Nakamura M, Horita S, Seki G, Moriya K. Bacteremia in hemodialysis patients. World J Nephrol. 2016 Nov;5(6):489–96. https://doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v5.i6.489
3. Kabanda A, Jadoul M, Pochet JM, Lauwerys R, de Strihou CV, Bernard A. Determinants of the serum concentrations of low molecular weight proteins in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 1994 Jun;45(6):1689–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.1994.221
4. Lee D, Haase M, Haase-Fielitz A, Paizis K, Goehl H, Bellomo R. A pilot, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study of high cut-off versus high-flux dialysis membranes. Blood Purif. 2009 Dec;28(4):365–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000235961
5. Staley JT. Bacteria, Their Smallest Representatives and Subcellular Structures, and the Purported Precambrian Fossil “Metallogenium”. In Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop 1999 Oct;62–7. National Academies Press.
6. Roumelioti ME, Trietley G, Nolin TD, Ng YH, Xu Z, Alaini A, Figueroa R, Unruh ML, Argyropoulos CP. Beta-2 microglob-ulin clearance in high-flux dialysis and convective dialysis modalities: a meta-analysis of published studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018 Jun;33(6):1025–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ndt/gfx311
7. Schindler R, Christ-Kohlrausch F, Frei U, Shaldon S. Differences in the permeability of high-flux dialyzer membranes for bacterial pyrogens. Clin Nephrol. 2003 Jun;59(6):447–54. https://doi.org/10.5414/CNP59447
8. Schepers E, Glorieux G, Eloot S, Hulko M, Boschetti-de-Fierro A, Beck W, et al. Assessment of the association between increasing membrane pore size and endotoxin permeability using a novel experimental dialysis simulation set-up. BMC Nephrol. 2018 Dec;19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-017-0808-y
9. Gordon SM, Oettinger CW, Bland LA, Oliver JC, Arduino MJ, Aguero SM, et al. Pyrogenic reactions in patients receiving conventional, high-efficiency, or high-flux hemodialysis treat-ments with bicarbonate dialysate containing high concentrations of bacteria and endotoxin. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1992 Mar;2(9):1436–44. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.V291436
10. Collins DM, Lambert MB, Tannenbaum JS, Oliverio M, Schwab SJ. Tolerance of hemodialysis: a randomized prospective trial of high-flux versus conventional high-efficiency hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1993 Aug;4(2):148–54. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.V42148
11. Palmer SC, Rabindranath KS, Craig JC, Roderick PJ, Locatelli F, Strippoli GF. High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sept;9: CD005016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005016.pub2
12. Kantartzi K, Panagoutsos S, Mourvati E, Roumeliotis A, Leivaditis K, Devetzis V, et al. Can dialysis modality influence quality of life in chronic hemodialysis patients? Low-flux hemo-dialysis versus high-flux hemodiafiltration: a cross-over study. Ren Fail. 2013 Mar;35(2):216–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/08860 22X.2012.743858
13. Allon M, Depner TA, Radeva M, Bailey J, Beddhu S, Butterly D, et al. Impact of dialysis dose and membrane on infection-related hospitalization and death: results of the HEMO Study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Jul;14(7):1863–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASN.0000074237.78764.D1
14. Kavyannejad R, Oshvandi K, Borzuo R, Gholyaf M. A com-parison of the effects of two low- and high-flux dialyzers on the patient’s comfort and hemodialysis Complications: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Qom Univ Med Sci J. 2015 Sept;9:11–9.
15. Portolés J, Martín L, Broseta JJ, Cases A. Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiology and Current Treatments, to Future Agents. Front Med. 2021 Mar;8:328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.642296
16. Santoro D, Benedetto F, Mondello P, Pipitò N, Barillà D, Spinelli F, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis: current per-spectives. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2014 Jul;7:281–94. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJNRD.S46643