HEMOCOMPATIBILITY OF DOUBLE FILTRATION LIPOPROTEIN APHERESIS USING POLYETHERSULFONE VS. ETHYLENE-VINYL ALCOHOL COPOLYMER MEMBRANES

Clinical data on the hemocompatibility of membranes used in double filtration lipoprotein apheresis (LP) is virtually unavailable. The present trial compared the hemocompatibility of a recently introduced polyethersulfone (PES) based plasma fractionator membrane, FractioPES® 200, to an ethylene-viny...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of artificial organs 2019-08, Vol.42 (8)
Main Authors: Krieter, D H, Jeyaseelan, J, Rüth, M, Lemke, H-D, Wanner, C, Drechsler, C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alcohol
Alcohols
Apheresis
Blood
Cell activation
Circuits
Complement activation
Complement component C5a
Copolymers
Ethylene
Filtration
Fractionation
High density lipoprotein
Leukocytes
Low density lipoprotein
Membranes
Polyethersulfones
Tempering
Thrombin
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Clinical data on the hemocompatibility of membranes used in double filtration lipoprotein apheresis (LP) is virtually unavailable. The present trial compared the hemocompatibility of a recently introduced polyethersulfone (PES) based plasma fractionator membrane, FractioPES® 200, to an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVAL) membrane during LP. In a prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover trial, eight patients on routine LP were subjected to one treatment with PES plasma (0.6 m², 3M PlasCure® 0.6) and fractionation (1.9 m², 3M SelectiCure® H19) membranes and one control treatment using a set of EVAL membranes (0.5 m², Asahi Plasmaflo OP-05W; 2.0 m², Asahi Cascadeflo EC-50W). Intraindividual treatment conditions were kept identical. At defined times, samples were drawn at different sites of the extracorporeal blood and plasma circuit to measure white blood cell (WBC) and platelet (PC) counts, complement factor C5a and thrombin-anti-thrombin III (ATIII). With a nadir at 25 min, WBC in EVAL decreased to 34 % of baseline vs. 64 % at 20 min in PES (P
ISSN:0391-3988
1724-6040