Sibbel Scott, Hunt Abigail, Laplante Suzanne, Beck Werner, Gellens Mary, Brunelli Steven M
From the *DaVita Clinical Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and †Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, Illinois.
ASAIO J. 2016 Sep-Oct;62(5):613-22. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000409.
Differences in dialyzer design may have consequences for patient outcomes. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of commonly used dialyzers with respect to measures of dialysis treatment, anemia management, inflammation, and dialyzer clotting. Patients receiving hemodialysis between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, and using polyarylethersulfone-polyvinylpyrrolidone (PAS-PVP; Polyflux Revaclear) or polysulfone (PS; Optiflux 160 or Optiflux 180) dialyzers were followed for 1 year or until end of study or censoring for dialyzer switch, modality change, or loss to follow-up. For each comparison, eligible patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 on a range of baseline characteristics. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed models. Dialysis adequacy was similar in both dialyzer groups. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) doses were lower for patients using PAS-PVP versus patients using PS-160 (difference range: 75-589 units/treatment; statistically significant in months 1-5 and 7) and for patients using PAS-PVP versus patients using PS-180 (difference range: 27-591 unit/treatment; statistically significant in months 1-9). Intravenous iron doses trended lower for patients using PAS-PVP versus patients using PS, but hemoglobin concentrations were equivalent. In conclusion, use of PAS-PVP versus PS dialyzers was associated with equivalent dialysis adequacy, lower ESA doses, modestly lower Intravenous iron doses, and equivalent hemoglobin concentrations.
透析器设计的差异可能会对患者的治疗结果产生影响。我们评估了常用透析器在透析治疗、贫血管理、炎症和透析器凝血方面的比较效果。对2009年1月1日至2013年12月31日期间接受血液透析并使用聚芳醚砜-聚乙烯吡咯烷酮(PAS-PVP;聚通量Revaclear)或聚砜(PS;Optiflux 160或Optiflux 180)透析器的患者进行了为期1年的随访,直至研究结束或因透析器更换、治疗方式改变或失访而被截尾。对于每次比较,符合条件的患者在一系列基线特征上进行1:1倾向得分匹配。使用广义线性混合模型评估结果。两个透析器组的透析充分性相似。与使用PS-160的患者相比,使用PAS-PVP的患者促红细胞生成素(ESA)剂量较低(差异范围:75-589单位/次治疗;在第1-5个月和第7个月具有统计学意义);与使用PS-180的患者相比,使用PAS-PVP的患者促红细胞生成素(ESA)剂量也较低(差异范围:27-591单位/次治疗;在第1-9个月具有统计学意义)。与使用PS的患者相比,使用PAS-PVP的患者静脉铁剂剂量有降低趋势,但血红蛋白浓度相当。总之,与PS透析器相比,使用PAS-PVP透析器具有相当的透析充分性、较低的ESA剂量、略低的静脉铁剂剂量和相当的血红蛋白浓度。