No abstract

Hemodialysis induces thrombocytopenia and activation of coagulation. The severity of this reaction depends on the kind of membrane. In this study, we present the results of determination of platelet count, and of different factors of coagulation in 10 stable dialysis patients. Measurements were performed at the start and after 15 and 45 min of dialysis. Samples were taken before and after the dialyzer. All 10 patients were treated consecutively and in a random order during 14 days with the following membranes: polyacrylonitrile (Filtral 12, Hospal), hemophan (GFS 120 Plus, Gambro, and Bio-Nephros HF Andante, Organon), polysulfone (F6, Fresenius), cuprammonium (AM50-BIO, Asahi) and cellulose acetate (Duo-Flux, Cordis-Dow). The cellulose acetate membrane induced a small but significant drop of mean platelet count [results are mean (SEM)]: from 245,000 (17,000) to 224,000 (16,000)/μl after 15 min. With the same membrane a dramatic increase after 15 min was noted of 6-keto-PGF1α from 56.3 (9) to 146.7 (35.7) pg/ml. The other membranes did not influence significantly prostanoid levels and platelet count. During dialysis no significant changes of fibrinopeptide A (FPA) and von Willebrand factor (VWF) were observed. Nevertheless, predialysis FPA and β-thromboglobulin (βTG) concentrations were lowest after 14 days of treatment with cellulose acetate and polyacrylonitrile membranes. It is concluded that the activation of coagulation depends on the membrane used. The activation may be dominated by one single system (e.g. prostanoids). The different predialysis concentration of some of the factors suggests interference of the dialysis membrane with the activation of coagulation during the interdialytic period.

Bone mineral content (BMC) was measured at the lumbar spine region by means of dual photon absorptiometry over a 3-year period in 20 patients on regular hemodialysis (RHD). Baseline mean BMC at the start of the monitoring was significantly decreased to 82.64% of predicted value (p < 0.05). During a 3-year follow-up mean BMC rose significantly to 90.61% (p < 0.05). Six patients received vitamin D supplements. Analysis of the data showed that rise of BMC was similar whether vitamin D was given or not. Our data suggest that (1) RHD inhibits bone loss at the lumbar spine level that occurred mainly before active uremia treatment and (2) the increment of BMC observed in this study can be attributed to the different site of measurement, the inaccuracy of the measurements by interference with soft tissue calcifications and the dialysis conditions

The objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and influence on renal function of perindopril and amlodipine in cyclosporine-treated renal allograft recipients with mild to moderate hypertension. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial in ambulatory patients. Four phases were conducted: 2 weeks on placebo, 8 weeks of maintenance (perindopril or amlodipine), and 2 weeks of washout between treatment periods. Ten hypertensive patients with stable renal allograft function transplanted more than 6 months previously and receiving cyclosporine as part of their immunosuppressive regimen were studied. The patients were allocated to perindopril (2 or 4 mg/d) and amlodipine (5 mg/d) in a random sequence. If office diastolic pressure was greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks, the dosage was doubled and continued for another 4 weeks. The main outcome measures were office and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure changes after 8 weeks of active treatment and treatment and time effect on glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow. Perindopril and amlodipine were equally effective in lowering office blood pressure and similarly efficacious for the 24-hour period of the day. Neither drug affected glomerular filtration rate or effective renal plasma flow. Both agents demonstrated equivalent capacity (time x treatment, P = .955) to reverse renal vascular resistance (amlodipine from 0.35 +/- 0.02 to 0.30 +/- 0.02 mm Hg/mL per minute per 1.73 m2; perindopril from 0.36 +/- 0.03 to 0.32 +/- 0.01) (time effect of all treatments together, P = .043).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract