4.0 Article

Does hemodiafiltration improve the removal of homocysteine?

期刊

HEMODIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 515-521

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2011.00610.x

关键词

Hemodiafiltration; hemodialysis; homocysteine removal; Kt/V index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High prevalence of hyperhomocysteinemia is common in hemodialysis (HD) patients and could contribute to worsen the cardiovascular risk. Beyond vitamin B status, dialysis modality itself could influence homocysteine (Hcy) levels. The objective was compare the reduction rate (RR) of Hcy and cysteine in stable dialyzed patients treated by standard HD or hemodiafiltration (HDF). Seventy-five patients undergoing stable dialysis through standard high-flux HD (n = 35) or HDF (n = 40) were included. Biological parameters were determined before and after a midweek dialysis session. Urea percent reduction per session and Kt/V index (K, body urea clearance, T, time of dialysis, and V, urea distribution volume), defined as a marker of dialysis efficacy, were similar between HD and HDF groups. By contrast, higher RR of beta2 microglobulin (beta 2m) was observed in HDF compared with HD (78.6 vs. 72.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). Likewise, higher RR of Hcy was obtained with HDF compared to HD (46.0 vs. 41.5%, respectively; P < 0.05), whereas the RR of cysteine was similar in both groups. Interestingly, a positive correlation between Hcy RR and urea Kt/V index was observed (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) and between Hcy RR and beta 2m RR (r = 0.45, P < 0.001). Time-averaged concentration (TAC) of Hcy was lower with HDF compared with HD (17.8 vs. 19.1 mu mol/L, respectively), although not significant. There was no difference in median Hcy according to dialysis modality for neither pre-nor postdialysis levels. Significant higher removal of Hcy was observed with HDF compared with standard HD, although urea Kt/V index was similar. Enhanced removal of middle molecules, such as beta 2m, could be involved in Hcy RR improvement with HDF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据