Twardowski Zbylut J
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, 65203, USA.
Semin Dial. 2006 May-Jun;19(3):217-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2006.00158.x.
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.
虽然单次使用透析器以及通过化学再处理进行复用都与一些并发症相关,但在这方面两者都没有绝对优势。一些并发症主要发生在首次使用透析器时:新的玻璃纸或铜氨膜可能激活补体系统,或者在生产过程中可能有有害物质被引入透析器,或在储存期间产生。这些物质在常规冲洗过程中可能无法完全清除。透析器复用与环境污染、过敏反应、残余化学物质注入(反弹释放)、消毒剂浓度不足以及热原反应有关。再处理过程中使用的漂白剂会导致透析器对包括白蛋白在内的较大分子的通透性逐渐增加。不使用漂白剂的再处理方法会导致膜通透性逐渐降低,尤其是对较大分子的通透性。大多数比较研究并未显示复用透析器的中心和不复用透析器的中心在死亡率上存在差异,然而,最大的一组与透析相关的死亡发生在一次性使用透析器时,原因是在制造过程中引入了全氟烃,且在透析程序前透析器准备过程中未完全清除。与复用相关的成本节约相当可观,尤其是对于更昂贵的高通量合成膜透析器。通过复用,一些透析中心能够负担得起使用更高效但更昂贵的透析器;因此,他们能提供更高剂量的透析并降低死亡率。一些研究表明,根据方法不同,化学复用导致的发病率略有升高。透析器复用肯定会减少废物处理,从而减轻对环境的影响,特别是如果通过热消毒进行再处理。可以肯定地预测,透析中心的透析器复用将会持续,因为这也为供应商节省了资金。为患者节省时间和为供应商节省资金是设计一种用于日常家庭血液透析的新机器的主要动机。这种在20世纪90年代开发的机器可在原位清洁和热消毒透析器及管路,因此一个月都无需更换。相比之下,在使用其他血液透析机器治疗的家庭血液透析患者中,透析器复用正变得越来越不受欢迎,几乎绝迹。