Biocompatible membranes in acute renal failure (ARF), hope or illusion?
© BioMed Central Ltd 2001
Published: 1 March 1997
Acute renal failure remains associated with high mortality rates. Different attempts to increase survival have not been successful [1, 2]. The use of biocompatible polyacrylonitrile membrane gave promising, but controversial results [3, 4]. This paper compares the results of treatment of patients with ARF by hemodialysis using polysulfonate (BC) and cellulose diacetate membrane (BIC).
Patients and methods
In a group of 33 patients with ARF (surgical and medical group, 25 males and 8 females, average age 58.7 ± 8.3 years), polysulfone membrane was used in 14 patients (group BC), and cellulose diacetate membrane in 19 patients (group BIC). On inclusion in the study, there were no significant differences in the severity of the underlying disease between the observed groups. Apache II0 score was 36.2 ± 9.6 in the BC group, and between the observed groups. Apache II0 score was 36.2 ± 9.6 in the BC group, and 39.8 ± 9.6 in the BIC group (P = 0.34; NS, Student t-test). There was no correlation in survival with regard to patients' age. The survival of medical and surgical group of patients was better in the BC group (P = 0.013).
The use of biocompatible polysulfone membrane in acute renal failure, along with other measures, represents an advance in the patient management.
- Brady HR, Singe GG: Acute renal failure. Lancet. 1995, 346: 1533-1540. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92057-9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gašparovic V, Radonic R, Gurašin M, Ivanovic D, Kvarantan M, Husar J: Acute renal failure in the war in Croatia. Nephrol Dialys Transpl. 1995, 10: 1261-Google Scholar
- Hakim RM, Wingard RL, Parker RA: Effect of the dialysis membrane in the treatment of patients with acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 1994, 17: 1338-1341. 10.1056/NEJM199411173312003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Von Herrath KHD, Schaefer K: Is the choice of membrane important for patients with acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis. Artif Org Boston. 1995, 5: 391-394.Google Scholar