Critical Care Nephrology 2019
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-44942-7.00151-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biocompatibility of the Dialysis System

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More hydrophobic membranes generally display reduced adsorption of proteins whereas others such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) are recognized as protein-adsorbing membranes [ 61 , 62 ]. The protein layer deposits (‘pseudo membrane’) not only affect the polymer surface but could seep into the pores as well, resulting in narrowing of the pores thereby lowering the sieving properties and hence reducing solute removal particularly for larger solutes [ 63 , 64 ]. The effects are amplified with sub-optimal heparin levels that enhance blood coagulation and at higher ultrafiltration fractions when the phenomenon of polarization thickens the protein deposit on the membrane surface [ 65 ].…”
Section: Blood–materials Interactions: the Specific Case Of Dialysis Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…More hydrophobic membranes generally display reduced adsorption of proteins whereas others such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) are recognized as protein-adsorbing membranes [ 61 , 62 ]. The protein layer deposits (‘pseudo membrane’) not only affect the polymer surface but could seep into the pores as well, resulting in narrowing of the pores thereby lowering the sieving properties and hence reducing solute removal particularly for larger solutes [ 63 , 64 ]. The effects are amplified with sub-optimal heparin levels that enhance blood coagulation and at higher ultrafiltration fractions when the phenomenon of polarization thickens the protein deposit on the membrane surface [ 65 ].…”
Section: Blood–materials Interactions: the Specific Case Of Dialysis Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Any significant removal of uraemic toxins through an adsorption mechanism is unlikely as the adsorption phenomenon is highly non-specific, poorly defined and extremely difficult to quantify reliably [ 67 ]. The ‘secondary membrane’ in HD is influenced by several factors related to blood composition, chemical properties of proteins, physicochemical membrane characteristics (surface roughness, thickness, porosity, composition, hydrophobicity and charge) and operating conditions within the dialyser (blood flow dynamics and temperature) [ 53 , 63 , 64 , 68 , 69 ]. The impairment of either diffusive and convective transport by secondary membrane formation increases the resistance to mass transfer; this is undesirable and contrary to the core prerequisite of biocompatibility, viz., the nature of blood–material interactions should be such as not to diminish or impair the functioning of the device in its intended use [ 70 ].…”
Section: Blood–materials Interactions: the Specific Case Of Dialysis Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…42 While not directly related to nanoparticles, corona formation on dialysis membranes discussed by Fumagalli and Panichi (2019) is relevant in the context of nanodevices. 43 According to these authors, there is the competitive deposition of high molecular weight proteins on the membrane surface in the first step. Subsequently, proteins of lower molecular weights, which can enter the membrane pores, show dynamic adsorption inside the membranes.…”
Section: ■ Vroman Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%