Which dialyser membrane to choose?

Tony Bouré and Raymond Vanholder

University Hospital Ghent, Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology Division, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Raymond Vanholder, University Hospital Ghent, Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology Division, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: raymond.vanholder{at}ugent.be

Keywords: bioincompatible; cellulose; dialyser; high-flux; low-flux; synthetic

Introduction

Exchanges through dialyser membranes aim: (i) at the removal of uraemic solutes that are retained because of renal failure (e.g. urea) and (ii) at the restoration of depleted compounds (e.g. bicarbonate).

The originally used cellulosic membranes were derived from cotton and therefore named ‘natural’. They activated complement and leukocytes, inducing an inflammatory reaction as one of the indices of ‘bioincompatibility’ [1]. Later on, chemically developed ‘synthetic’ polymers appeared to mitigate this activation [2]. Furthermore, masking hydroxyl groups, which are responsible for the complement activation with cellulosic membranes, also resulted in more biocompatibility [3]. Therefore, cuprophan and its analogues were called ‘unmodified cellulosic’ vs the more biocompatible, later developed ‘modified/regenerated cellulosic’ membranes.

Many synthetic membranes have large pore sizes allowing higher rates of water flux and permitting a higher ultrafiltration capacity as well as a better removal of high molecular weight ‘uraemic solutes’ than membranes with smaller pore size. Therefore, although a high ultrafiltration rate and the capacity to remove large molecules do not strictly run in parallel, large pore membranes are mostly referred to as ‘high-flux’, in contrast to ‘low-flux’ membranes with smaller pores. Five general types of membranes are available at present (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Types of membranes with some examplesa

 
In this review, the most relevant membrane characteristics allowing a rational choice for treatment are discussed. More extensive relevant data can be found in the European Best Practice Guidelines for haemodialysis, part I [4,5].

Relevant membrane characteristics

Biocompatibility towards leukocytes and the complement system
Biocompatibility describes materials, which cause only minor biochemical and biological effects. In this review, we will concentrate on leukocyte and complement activation, which occur predominantly when unmodified cellulosic membranes are used.

Baseline activation of leukocytes results in inflammation, which is related to vascular disease, the first cause of death in dialysis patients [6]. C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation that is related to mortality [7,8], is lower when synthetic, biocompatible, high-flux polysulfone is used, compared with unmodified cellulose [9]; this difference is present both pre-dialysis, as a carry-over effect of previous dialyses, and is further accentuated several hours after dialysis [9].

Subsequently, functional impairment of leukocytes develops as well, e.g. the impaired function of stimulated granulocytes and monocytes, of phagocytosis, of chemotaxis and of surface molecule expression. All these functional defects predispose to infection [10], the second most frequent cause of death in dialysis patients [6]. The bioincompatibility concerning complement and leukocytes, is not so strong when synthetic and modified cellulosic membranes are used [11,12].

Impermeability against dialysate impurities
Dialysate may be contaminated by bacteria, which release lipopolysaccharides, peptidoglycans, DNA and other pro-inflammatory products when they traverse the membrane and enter the blood stream. The risk for inflammation is even higher when backfiltration occurs, i.e. when dialysate enters the blood by convection in the distal part of the dialyser to compensate for net ultrafiltration, which occurs in the more proximal parts of the dialyser. Paradoxically, bacterial products penetrate more easily across small-pore cellulosic membranes into the blood compartment than across large-pore synthetic membranes, which adsorb such bacterial products. As a result of this transfer of bacterial products, leukocytes are activated [13]. Applying as pure dialysate as possible is the optimal approach to avoid transfer of impurities. Nevertheless, using a synthetic membrane as an additional precaution, will offer extra protection.

Adsorption
Adsorption onto the membrane, a characteristic of synthetic membranes, contributes to the removal of noxious compounds such as interleukin-1, tumour necrosis factor, peptides, interleukin-6 and ß2-microglobulin (ß2-M) [14]. Not all synthetic membranes have the same adsorptive capacity. Adsorption is most pronounced for polymethylmethacrylate and AN69.

As a result of the restricted surface area of dialysers, adsorption capacity will rapidly be saturated. Acceptable rates of net removal by adsorption can only be achieved if the surface area is drastically increased by the development of specific devices that have adsorption as only aim. These devices should then contain beads to which well-defined adsorptive properties are conferred.

Pore size
Recently, an increasing number of larger compounds (so-called middle-molecules, >500 Da), which are bioactive and may contribute to the uraemic syndrome have been recognized (Table 2) [15]. Enlarging pore size and increasing flux allows high rates of removal of these solutes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Middle molecules with a potential biological impact

 
ß2-M has been implicated in the genesis of uraemic amyloid disease [16]; the concentration of ß2-M decreases progressively when patients are treated on high-flux membranes [17]. A further decrease in the concentration of ß2-M can be achieved by changing the duration and strategic concept of dialysis sessions, e.g. by adopting daily long slow overnight on-line haemodiafiltration [18].

As a further example of a ‘middle molecule’, the concentration of leptin, which causes decreased appetite and malnutrition [19], is reduced only during high-flux dialysis [20].

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are involved in the genesis of an inflammatory state and cardiovascular disease [21]. Their concentration is significantly decreased during dialysis with super-flux membranes, a new generation of devices, which have an even higher capacity to remove middle molecules than high-flux membranes [22].

Homocystein, a small protein bound compound, is related to vascular damage [23]. Its concentration is decreased when patients are switched from high-flux to super-flux dialysis [24]. Likewise, pre-dialysis indoxyl sulfate concentration is also decreased by super-flux dialysis (R. De Smet, unpublished data). Both studies have been conducted with cellulosic super-flux membranes, which are also more leaky for albumin. This characteristic might explain the high rate of removal of the two protein bound compounds.

Summary
The presently available membranes cover a broad spectrum from unmodified cellulose low-flux to synthetic high-flux membranes (Tables 1 and 3). Unmodified low-flux cellulose: (i) is bio-incompatible (i.e. activates complement), (ii) does not prevent the penetration of impurities from the dialysate into the blood stream, (iii) does not adsorb unwelcome compounds and (iv) does not remove middle molecules.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Global overview

 
High-flux synthetic membranes are bio-compatible, reflect dialysate impurities, adsorb compounds and remove middle molecules.

All other membrane types show intermediate characteristics.

Clinical consequences

Several controlled studies suggest the superiority of high-flux membranes for isolated aspects of the uraemic syndrome, such as ß2-M amyloidosis [25], loss of residual renal function [26], dyslipidaemia [27], polyneuropathy [28] and infection [10], although other studies remained inconclusive [5,17,29,30].

Regarding mortality, at least eight observational studies showed superiority of high-flux dialysis [5, 3138], and at least two studies suggested that this benefit was in part related to removal of middle molecules [37,38].

In contrast, the only controlled mortality study, the HEMO study, failed to document the superiority of high-flux compared with low-flux membranes. Secondary analysis showed a trend, which could be compatible with a certain superiority [39], since a benefit with respect to cardio-vascular events was shown for high-flux membranes. The shortcomings of this study were, however, that relatively short dialysis times and reuse, which may have an unpredictable impact on membrane flux, were allowed. Also, prevalent dialysis patients were enrolled so that the outcome may have been confounded by morbidities, which had been acquired in the pre-study treatment period.

Hence, although there might be a trend for superiority of high-flux membranes regarding mortality, this finding must be confirmed by further studies, before definite conclusions can be drawn. The data suggesting superiority regarding morbidity are more convincing.

Conclusion

On theoretical grounds, dialysis membranes with the best biological properties should be biocompatible, exclude impurities in the dialysate and have a large pore size (Table 3). A high adsorptive capacity is less essential, but may increase the total amount of solutes removed. Clinical arguments supporting the notion of a superiority of high-flux synthetic membranes relate to certain facets of the uraemic syndrome, e.g. the quality of life, but whether they have a beneficial impact on mortality remains an unresolved issue.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

References

  1. Craddock PR, Fehr J, Dalmasso AP, Brighan KL, Jacob HS. Hemodialysis leukopenia. Pulmonary vascular leukostasis resulting from complement activation by dialyzer cellophane membranes. J Clin Invest 1977; 59: 879–888[ISI][Medline]
  2. Henderson LW, Miller ME, Hamilton RW, Norman ME. Hemodialysis leukopenia and polymorph random mobility—a possible correlation. J Lab Clin Med 1975; 85: 191–197[ISI][Medline]
  3. Hoenich NA, Woffindin C, Mathews JN, Vienken J. Biocompatibility of membranes used in the treatment of renal failure. Biomaterials 1995; 16: 587–592[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  4. Section II. Haemodialysis adequacy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17 [Suppl 7]: 16–31[Medline]
  5. Section III. Biocompatibility. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17 [Suppl 7]: 32–44[Medline]
  6. Section VI. Causes of death in ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34: S87–S94[Medline]
  7. Yeun JY, Levine RA, Mantadilok V, Kaysen GA. C-Reactive protein predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 35: 469–476[ISI][Medline]
  8. Ikizler TA, Wingard RL, Harvell J, Shyr Y, Hakim RM. Association of morbidity with markers of nutrition and inflammation in chronic hemodialysis patients: a prospective study. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 1945–1951[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  9. Schouten WE, Grooteman MP, van Houte AJ et al. Effects of dialyser and dialysate on the acute phase reaction in clinical bicarbonate dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15: 379–384[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Vanholder R, Ringoir S, Dhondt A, Hakim R. Phagocytosis in uremic and hemodialysis patients: a prospective and cross sectional study. Kidney Int 1991; 39: 320–327[ISI][Medline]
  11. Combe C, Pourtein M, de Precigout V et al. Granulocyte activation and adhesion molecules during hemodialysis with cuprophane and a high-flux biocompatible membrane. Am J Kidney Dis 1994; 24: 437–442[ISI][Medline]
  12. Dhondt AW, Vanholder RC, Waterloos MA, Glorieux GL, Ringoir SM. Leukocyte CD14 and CD45 expression during hemodialysis: polysulfone versus cuprophane. Nephron 1996; 74: 342–348[ISI][Medline]
  13. Pereira BJ, Snodgrass BR, Hogan PJ, King AJ. Diffusive and convective transfer of cytokine-inducing bacterial products across hemodialysis membranes. Kidney Int 1995; 47: 603–610[ISI][Medline]
  14. Bouman CS, van Olden RW, Stoutenbeek CP. Cytokine filtration and adsorption during pre- and postdilution hemofiltration in four different membranes. Blood Purif 1998; 16: 261–268[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  15. Vanholder R, De Smet R, Glorieux G et al. Review on uremic toxins: classification, concentration, and interindividual variability. Kidney Int 2003; 63: 1934–1943[ISI][Medline]
  16. Gejyo F, Yamada T, Odani S et al. A new form of amyloid protein associated with chronic hemodialysis was identified as beta 2-microglobulin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985; 129: 701–706[ISI][Medline]
  17. Locatelli F, Mastrangelo F, Redaelli B et al. Effects of different membranes and dialysis technologies on patient treatment tolerance and nutritional parameters. The Italian Cooperative Dialysis Study Group. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 1293–1302[ISI][Medline]
  18. Raj DS, Ouwendyk M, Francoeur R, Pierratos A. Beta(2)-microglobulin kinetics in nocturnal haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15: 58–64[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Halaas JL, Gajiwala KS, Maffei M et al. Weight-reducing effects of the plasma protein encoded by the obese gene. Science 1995; 269: 543–546[ISI][Medline]
  20. Widjaja A, Kielstein JT, Horn R et al. Free serum leptin but not bound leptin concentrations are elevated in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15: 846–850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Witko-Sarsat V, Friedlander M, Nguyen KT et al. Advanced oxidation protein products as novel mediators of inflammation and monocyte activation in chronic renal failure. J Immunol 1998; 161: 2524–2532[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Stein G, Franke S, Mahiout A et al. Influence of dialysis modalities on serum AGE levels in end-stage renal disease patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 999–1008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Bostom AG, Shemin D, Lapane KL et al. Hyperhomocysteinemia and traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis: a case-control study. Atherosclerosis 1995; 114: 93–103[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  24. Van Tellingen A, Grooteman MP, Bartels PC et al. Long-term reduction of plasma homocysteine levels by super-flux dialyzers in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 2001; 59: 342–347[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  25. Kuchle C, Fricke H, Held E, Schiffl H. High-flux hemodialysis postpones clinical manifestation of dialysis-related amyloidosis. Am J Nephrol 1996; 16: 484–488[ISI][Medline]
  26. McKane W, Chandna SM, Tattersall JE, Greenwood RN, Farrington K. Identical decline of residual renal function in high-flux biocompatible hemodialysis and CAPD. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 256–265[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  27. Goldberg IJ, Kaufman AM, Lavarias VA, Vanni-Reyes T, Levin NW. High flux dialysis membranes improve plasma lipoprotein profiles in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996; 11 [Suppl 2]: 104–107[Medline]
  28. Robles NR, Murga L, Galvan S, Esparrago JF, Sanchez-Casado E. Hemodialysis with cuprophane or polysulfone: effects on uremic polyneuropathy. Am J Kidney Dis 1993; 21: 282–287[ISI][Medline]
  29. Hoen B, Paul-Dauphin A, Hestin D, Kessler M. EPIBACDIAL: a multicenter prospective study of risk factors for bacteremia in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9: 869–876[Abstract]
  30. House AA, Wells GA, Donnelly JG, Nadler SP, Hebert PC. Randomized trial of high-flux vs low-flux haemodialysis: effects on homocysteine and lipids. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15: 1029–1034[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Bloembergen WE, Hakim RM, Stannard DC et al. Relationship of dialysis membrane and cause-specific mortality. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 1–10[ISI][Medline]
  32. Hornberger JC, Chernew M, Petersen J, Garber AM. A multivariate analysis of mortality and hospital admissions with high-flux dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 3: 1227–1237[Abstract]
  33. Koda Y, Nishi S, Miyazaki S et al. Switch from conventional to high-flux membrane reduces the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome and mortality of hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 1997; 52: 1096–1101[ISI][Medline]
  34. Chandran PK, Liggett R, Kirkpatrick B. Patient survival on PAN/AN69 membrane hemodialysis: a ten-year analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1993; 4: 1199–1204[Abstract]
  35. Churchill DN. Clinical impact of biocompatible dialysis membranes on patient morbidity and mortality: an appraisal of the evidence. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995; 10 [Suppl 10]: 52–56[Medline]
  36. Hakim RM, Held PJ, Stannard DC et al. Effect of the dialysis membrane on mortality of chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 566–570[ISI][Medline]
  37. Leypoldt JK, Cheung AK, Carroll CE et al. Effect of dialysis membranes and middle molecule removal on chronic hemodialysis patient survival. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 349–355[ISI][Medline]
  38. Port FK, Wolfe RA, Hulbert-Shearon TE et al. Mortality risk by hemodialyzer reuse practice and dialyzer membrane characteristics: results from the usrds dialysis morbidity and mortality study. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 276–286[ISI][Medline]
  39. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK et al. Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2010–2019[Abstract/Free Full Text]