Dialyzer reuse--part II: advantages and disadvantages.
Although single dialyzer use and reuse by chemical reprocessing are both associated with some complications, there is no definitive advantage to either in this respect. Some complications occur mainly at the first use of a dialyzer: a new cellophane or cuprophane membrane may activate the complement system, or a noxious agent may be introduced to the dialyzer during production or generated during storage. These agents may not be completely removed during the routine rinsing procedure. The reuse of dialyzers is associated with environmental contamination, allergic reactions, residual chemical infusion (rebound release), inadequate concentration of disinfectants, and pyrogen reactions. Bleach used during reprocessing causes a progressive increase in dialyzer permeability to larger molecules, including albumin. Reprocessing methods without the use of bleach are associated with progressive decreases in membrane permeability, particularly to larger molecules. Most comparative studies have not shown differences in mortality between centers reusing and those not reusing dialyzers, however, the largest cluster of dialysis-related deaths occurred with single-use dialyzers due to the presence of perfluorohydrocarbon introduced during the manufacturing process and not completely removed during preparation of the dialyzers before the dialysis procedure. The cost savings associated with reuse is substantial, especially with more expensive, high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzers. With reuse, some dialysis centers can afford to utilize more efficient dialyzers that are more expensive; consequently they provide a higher dose of dialysis and reduce mortality. Some studies have shown minimally higher morbidity with chemical reuse, depending on the method. Waste disposal is definitely decreased with the reuse of dialyzers, thus environmental impacts are lessened, particularly if reprocessing is done by heat disinfection. It is safe to predict that dialyzer reuse in dialysis centers will continue because it also saves money for the providers. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations to design a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines is becoming less popular and is almost extinct.
Twardowski
Zbylut J
ZJ
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, 65203, USA. twardowskiz@health.missouri.edu
D000707:Anaphylaxis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000009:adverse effects; D002476:Cellophane / Q000009:adverse effects; D002482:Cellulose / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives; D003167:Complement Activation / Q000187:drug effects; D004202:Disinfectants / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D004203:Disinfection; D004866:Equipment Contamination; D017743:Equipment Reuse; D005027:Ethylene Oxide / Q000009:adverse effects; D015312:Hemodialysis Solutions / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D009503:Neutropenia / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000453:epidemiology
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D004202:Disinfectants; D015312:Hemodialysis Solutions; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D002482:Cellulose; D002476:Cellophane; C009865:cuprammonium cellulose; D005027:Ethylene Oxide