No abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare molecule removal and albumin leakage in postdilution online hemodiafiltration with different high‐flux dialyzers. Methods: We studied seven high‐flux dialyzers (Polyflux 210H®, Evodial 2.2®, FxCordiax1000®, Elisio21H®, TS‐2.1SL®, XevontaHi20®, VitaPES 210‐HF®) in 6 patients. The reduction ratio (RR) of small‐ and middle‐sized molecules was calculated. Dialysate samples were collected to estimate the albumin leakage. Findings: Global differences between dialyzers were observed in the RR of ß2 microglobulin (P =0.003) and prolactin (P =0.013). The mean loss of albumin in the dialysate per session varied between 114 ± 67 mg (with Evodial 2.2) and 2621 ± 1363 mg per session (with XevontaHi20). We found global differences between dialyzers in total albumin loss (P = 0.05). Discussion: We demonstrated that the performance of high‐flux dialyzers was different among the types and that not all high‐flux dialyzers should be considered equal.

Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre -including this research content -immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.n e f r o l o g i a 2 0 2 0;4 0(3):356-370

No abstract

Carfilzomib has shown excellent outcomes for relapsed Multiple Myeloma. There have been increasing reports on cardiovascular adverse events. However, reports on severe pulmonary adverse events are rare. Our patient was a 79-year-old female, undergoing fourth-line therapy with Carfilzomib. At 24h after first administration, the patient was admitted to the emergency room complaining of dyspnoea. After a full recovery, the patient was re-evaluated. Since echocardiography showed normal cardiac function, Carfilzomib was re-initiated. At 24h after administration, the patient was re-admitted to the emergency room with severe dyspnoea, meeting criteria for ARDS. Despite mechanical ventilation, the patient developed cardiac arrest. Resuscitation was unsuccessful. Although patients might fully recover from a first episode of Carfilzomib-induced pulmonary toxicity, re-initiation of Carfilzomib is not recommended.