Dialyzer Reuse Following Manual Reprocessing with a New Sterilant, RenNew-D

Dialysis patients are at risk for toxicity from formaldehyde used in the reprocessing of dialyzers for reuse; therefore, replacing formaldehyde as a dialyzer sterilant would be advantageous. The potential for RenNew-D as a sterilizing agent was investigated in seven stable in-center hemodialysis patients over 20 consecutive dialyses with cuprammonium cellulose hollow-fiber dialyzers. Treatment with RenNew-D showed no toxicity to patients or dialyzers except for two blood leaks occurring in one patient. The mean number of dialyzer uses was 4.9. In all the dialyzers that passed functional testing small solute clearances were maintained with reuse. The ability of RenNew-D to improve the biocompatibility of reused dialyzers was documented with mean neutrophil counts falling to only 78% of initial values during first reuse of dialyzers processed with RenNew-D compared with a decrease in neutrophil count to 2% of initial values during first use of the same dialyzers. Our results suggest that RenNew-D may be a useful alternative to formaldehyde for the purpose of dialyzer reuse. A reuse procedure that includes processing with RenNew-D is associated with improved biocompatibility, possibly because of maintenance of the blood-derived membrane coating established during prior dialysis.     

Dialyzer reuse--part II: advantages and disadvantages

Although single dialyzer use and reuse by chemical reprocessing are both associated with some complications, there is no definitive advantage to either in this respect. Some complications occur mainly at the first use of a dialyzer: a new cellophane or cuprophane membrane may activate the complement system, or a noxious agent may be introduced to the dialyzer during production or generated during storage. These agents may not be completely removed during the routine rinsing procedure. The reuse of dialyzers is associated with environmental contamination, allergic reactions, residual chemical infusion (rebound release), inadequate concentration of disinfectants, and pyrogen reactions. Bleach used during reprocessing causes a progressive increase in dialyzer permeability to larger molecules, including albumin. Reprocessing methods without the use of bleach are associated with progressive decreases in membrane permeability, particularly to larger molecules. Most comparative studies have not shown differences in mortality between centers reusing and those not reusing dialyzers, however, the largest cluster of dialysis-related deaths occurred with single-use dialyzers due to the presence of perfluorohydrocarbon introduced during the manufacturing process and not completely removed during preparation of the dialyzers before the dialysis procedure. The cost savings associated with reuse is substantial, especially with more expensive, high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzers. With reuse, some dialysis centers can afford to utilize more efficient dialyzers that are more expensive; consequently they provide a higher dose of dialysis and reduce mortality. Some studies have shown minimally higher morbidity with chemical reuse, depending on the method. Waste disposal is definitely decreased with the reuse of dialyzers, thus environmental impacts are lessened, particularly if reprocessing is done by heat disinfection. It is safe to predict that dialyzer reuse in dialysis centers will continue because it also saves money for the providers. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations to design a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines is becoming less popular and is almost extinct.     

Effect of RenNew-D as a sterilant on the performance of reused dialyzers

RenNew-D (Alcide), a novel demand-release sporocidal agent, was employed instead of formaldehyde in the reprocessing for reuse of cuprophan hollow fiber dialyzers (Gambro) and the performance of these dialyzers was evaluated over 40 consecutive dialyses in six patients on maintenance hemodialysis. When RenNew-D was part of automated reprocessing performed with 4.3% bleach as specified by the manufacturer (Lixivitron), dialyzer survival was prolonged (16.7 +/- 7.2 uses) and hemodialysis neutropenia was unchanged with reuse. When RenNew-D was part of manual reprocessing conducted in the absence of bleach, marked improvement in dialyzer biocompatibility was observed but with a decreased survival (4.8 +/- 3.0). The majority of dialyzer failures were due to a fall in fiber bundle volume below a 85% set limit. Small solute clearances were maintained with both types of reprocessing. Dialyses were well tolerated throughout. Our data suggest that RenNew-D is a safe and efficacious product which can serve as a valuable alternative to formaldehyde for the purpose of dialyzer reuse.     

Outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia and pyrogenic reactions in a hemodialysis center

During the period from April 4, 1988, to April 20, 1988, nine pyrogenic reactions and five gram-negative bacteremias occurred in 11 patients undergoing dialysis. All pyrogenic reactions and gram-negative bacteremias occurred among patients in whom a reprocessed dialyzer was used. The rate of pyrogenic reactions or bacteremias per 100 sessions using a reprocessed dialyzer was higher than in sessions during which a new dialyzer was used (4.5 vs. 0; p = 0.03). Dialyzers were manually reprocessed with 2.5% Renalin germicide. The Renalin concentrations varied widely in 12 dialyzers stored after manual reprocessing during the epidemic period (0.9-4.2%); the median endotoxin concentrations varied from 0 to 246 ng/ml and were higher in dialyzers with Renalin concentrations less than or equal to 1.0% than in dialyzers with higher concentrations (p = 0.01). Experiments using a dilution technique described by a technician resulted in Renalin concentrations ranging from 1.4% at the surface to 3.5% at the bottom of the preparation container. These findings suggest that failure to adequately admix Renalin during dilution may be associated with low levels of disinfectant, high levels of bacteria and endotoxins in dialyzers, and outbreaks of pyrogenic reactions and gram-negative bacteremias in dialysis patients.     

Dialyzer Reuse: Interaction Between Dialyzer Membrane, Disinfectant (Formalin), and Blood During Dialyzer Reprocessing

Abstract: The growing practice of dialyzer reuse in recent years is mainly based on medical and economic considerations. However, adverse reactions such as immunohemolytic anemia due to anti-N_from antibody associated with dialyzer reuse have been reported. In this study, scanning electron microscopy and cytologic staining were used to evaluate the interaction between blood components and the reprocessed synthetic dialyzer membrane (polysulfone) after disinfectant (formaldehyde) treatment. The results showed that various blood components such as fibrin and blood cells still adhered to the dialyzer membrane after reprocessing. The study also demonstrated that the adhered denatured blood components could be detached by sonication andlor simulated hemodialysis and then gain access into the circulation. The re-entry of the denatured blood components to the patients exposed to reused dialyzers may result in an enhanced imrnunological response which may contribute to antibody formation (such as anti-N_from antibody) with a reused hemodialyzer.     

Dialyzer reuse: what we know and what we don't know

Despite extensive clinical experience, the effects of different reuse procedures have not been fully evaluated. The available data suggest that the effect of reuse on dialyzer performance depends upon the type of chemicals employed, the membrane type, and the size of the solute whose removal is being assessed. The effect of reuse on urea clearance is essentially defined by the residual cell volume with a total cell volume of > 80% associated with a dialyzer clearance that is within 10% of its original value. The effect of reuse on large solute clearance can be dramatic, with the procedure resulting in substantial changes in the beta2-microglobulin clearance of different dialyzers. Of note is the limited data available regarding the effect of reuse procedures on dialyzers processed more than 20 times.     

Reprocessing of capillary dialyzers

Changes in biocompatibility parameters of the cuprophan membrane, used repeatedly after reprocessing, were assessed. It is demonstrated that when the dialyzer is applied for the second of third time, cuprophan membrane loses its ability to induce acute dialysis leucopenia, typical for first application. Repeatedly used dialyzers also failed to cause bone-marrow irritation, which at first use induced a release of juvenile neutrophils into the circulation. Prior to first application, 6 dialyzers were subjected to 3 reprocessing procedures each. In all three, the cellulose membrane did not lose its ability to cause acute leucopenia. Therefore, the chemical reagents used in reprocessing (hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite and formaldehyde) are not the cause of membrane's loss of ability to induce leucopenia. Used for 3 times running, capillary dialyzers do not essentially lose their effective capillary volume. To determine whether the dialyzer is suitable for repeated use, both visual and objective check-up of the device is necessary. Some aspects of reprocessing technology are discussed.     

Impact of bleach cleaning on the performance of dialyzers with polysulfone membranes processed for reuse using peracetic Acid

Dialyzer performance may change with reuse depending on whether or not the dialyzer is cleaned with bleach. Bleach is usually used in conjunction with formaldehyde as the germicide. Because few data are available for dialyzers cleaned with bleach and disinfected with peracetic acid, we examined dialyzer performance in a cross-over study of dialyzers containing polysulfone membranes reprocessed using bleach and peracetic acid or peracetic acid alone. Each dialyzer was used for a total of 16 treatments, or until it failed standard criteria for continued use. Urea, beta2-microglobulin, and albumin removal were determined during the first, second, seventh, and 16th use of each dialyzer. Urea removal did not differ between the two reprocessing methods and did not change with reuse. Overall, beta2-microglobulin removal remained unchanged in dialyzers reprocessed with peracetic acid alone, but tended to increase after the seventh use in dialyzers reprocessed with bleach and peracetic acid. Approximately 60% of beta2-microglobulin removal resulted from trapping of beta2-microglobulin at the dialyzer membrane. Albumin loss into the dialysate was clinically insignificant throughout the study with both reprocessing methods. These data show that the clearance of both small and large molecules by dialyzers containing polysulfone membranes is well maintained by reprocessing with peracetic acid and that additional cleaning with bleach has limited impact on performance.     

Dialyzer reuse-Part I: Historical perspective

The first apparatus for hemodialysis in animals, made painstakingly by Abel et al. in their laboratory at the beginning of 20th century, was cleaned with acid-pepsin to digest blood, disinfected with thymol, and reused for up to 30 experiments for as long as 8 months. The obvious incentive was saving time. In the early years of hemodialysis in patients, dialyzers and lines were assembled and sterilized immediately before dialysis. Various methods of dry and moist heat sterilization and miscellaneous chemical agents were employed for disinfection. Significant time was required to assemble the dialyzers, so there was an incentive to reuse previously assembled dialyzers to save time, especially for home hemodialysis. Bleach to clean and formaldehyde to disinfect the membranes and lines was used for this purpose. Preassembled dialyzers, commercially introduced in the 1950s, were the most expensive components of hemodialysis systems, therefore reprocessing of these dialyzers was the most effective way to save money. Refrigeration of coil dialyzers with blood, introduced in the mid-1960s, was associated with frequent febrile reactions and was soon abandoned. Preassembled coil and plate dialyzers permitted almost complete return of blood after dialysis and led to the introduction of chemical disinfection for dialyzer reprocessing. A variety of disinfectants have been used. Formaldehyde was the most common disinfectant until the end of the 1970s. Sodium hypochlorite was used to clean the majority of dialyzers and to sterilize dialyzers with polyacrylonitrile membranes. In the early 1980s, peracetic acid and glutaraldehyde started to compete with formaldehyde. By the 1990s, formaldehyde had become less popular than peracetic acid. In the mid-1990s, disinfection and membrane cleaning with acetic acid and heat was introduced. Manual reprocessing was replaced by early reuse machines in the mid-1970s and a more sophisticated second generation of automated hemodialyzer reprocessing machines followed in the late 1970s. Recently disinfection of dialyzers with moist heat has resumed. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations for designing a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and moist-heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, the reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines has become less popular and is almost extinct.     

Differences in Bio-incompatibility among Four Biocompatible Dialyzer Membranes Using in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

Abstract

Background: Following the introduction of modified cellulosic and then synthetic membrane dialyzers, it was realized that the dialyzer bio-incompatibility depends on the membrane composition. We designed a prospective, randomized, cohort study of 6 months to determine several parameters of biocompatibility in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients treated with four different membrane dialyzers. Methods: There were 60 MHD patients enrolled in the study. In baseline, synthetic low-flux dialyzer, polysulfone (PS) membrane was used in all patients for at least 3 months. Then the patients were randomly divided into three groups according to different dialyzer membranes. Synthetic high-flux dialyzer group, ployethersulfone membrane, cellulose triacetate (CTA) high-flux membrane, and synthetic low-flux dialyzer, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) membrane were used in 6 months. A new dialyzer was used for each study treatment, and there was no dialyzer reuse. The biocompatibility markers and solutes removal markers were detected repeatedly at different time points. Results: The blood levels of highly sensitive C reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-1β, and interleukin (IL)-13 showed no difference among different groups at al time points. However, the blood complement levels and white blood cell counts were significantly different among three groups. When the dialyzers changed from PS to PMMA membrane, C3a levels and white blood cell counts changed significantly (p < 0.05). Moreover, the changes of C5a levels were significantly different between group CTA and group PMMA in month 3 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: There were much more differences on bio-incompatibility among different dialyzer membranes.     

Water permeability of high-flux dialyzer membranes after Renalin reprocessing

Dialysis with high-flux membranes is widely used, in part, because they are thought to increase the removal of middle molecules when compared with low-flux membranes. Dialyzer reprocessing; however, is thought to alter middle molecule clearance. Renalin, a mixture of germicidal agents, has widespread use in dialyzer reprocessing. We determined the effect of Renalin reprocessing on the water permeability of three different dialyzers of Fresenius (F80A and 200A) and Gambro (17R) manufacture using the dead-end filtration method. Two hundred and seventeen, predominantly used but some new, dialyzers were evaluated. Water permeability of the used, but not the new, dialyzers fell abruptly and dramatically with reprocessing. The permeability fell almost 70% in the F80A dialyzer after three reprocessing procedures with similar, but somewhat slower declines, seen in the other two dialyzers. We conclude that there is a decline in water permeability seen in Renalin reprocessed dialyzers. This factor and the associated change in solute clearance and ultrafiltration characteristics should be considered in assessing the effectiveness of dialyzer reprocessing.     

Dialyzer performance over prolonged reuse

Studies were performed in patients on maintenance hemodialysis to evaluate the role of prolonged dialyzer reuse in the management of end-stage renal disease. For this purpose the patients were dialyzed without interruption with the same hollow fiber dialyzers (GambroR 120M) reprocessed with the Lixivitron IIR equipment. The data obtained from in vivo clearances in sixteen patients demonstrate that membrane permeability to small solutes (urea, creatinine, phosphate) is maintained up to thirty dialyzer uses. In vitro studies confirmed this observation and established that clearances of larger solutes (vitamin B12) are also maintained over similar extensive dialyzer reuse. Hematological and blood gas studies were performed serially during dialysis in five additional patients. Although circulating leucocyte and neutrophil counts, hemoglobin concentration as well as arterial pH and partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide changed appropriately during dialysis, there was no observable difference from the first to the twentieth use of the same dialyzer. Thus, these results clearly demonstrate that prolonged dialyzer reuse in end-stage renal disease patients constitutes a stable form of renal replacement therapy provided adequate dialyzer reprocessing is applied.     

Association of dialyzer reuse and hospitalization rates among hemodialysis patients in the US

OBJECTIVES: To determine if reuse of hemodialyzers is associated with higher rates of hospitalization and their resulting costs among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. METHODS: Noncurrent cohort study of hospitalization rates among 27,264 ESRD patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987. RESULTS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers was associated with a greater rate of hospitalization than in facilities not reprocessing (relative rate (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.14). This higher rate of hospitalization was observed with dialyzer reuse using peracetic/acetic acids (RR = 1.11, CI 1. 04-1.18) and formaldehyde (RR = 1.07, CI 1.00-1.14), but not glutaraldehyde (p = 0.97). There was no difference among hospitalization rates in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with any sterilant and those not reprocessing. Hospitalization for causes other than vascular access morbidity in free-standing facilities reusing dialyzers with formaldehyde was not different from hospitalization in facilities not reusing. However, reuse with peracetic/acetic acids was associated with higher rates of hospitalization than formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, CI 1.03-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis in free-standing facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acids or formaldehyde was associated with greater hospitalization than dialysis without dialyzer reprocessing. This greater hospitalization accounts for a large increment in inpatient stays in the USA. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable morbidity among hemodialysis patients. Copyright Copyright 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel     

Dialyzer Reuse and Patient Outcomes: What Do We Know Now?

Although some hemodialysis (HD) providers in the United States have recently embarked on programs to discontinue dialyzer reprocessing, the practice of dialyzer reuse is still much more common in the United States than in many other countries. Continuation of reprocessing programs has been justified chiefly as an effort to deliver HD with biocompatible and often expensive higher flux dialysis membranes. However, this rationale is considerably less compelling with the decrease in cost for most types of HD membranes and with ongoing debates about the relative effectiveness of HD membranes according to flux and other characteristics. While it is highly likely that mandated quality control standards have limited catastrophic events, such as outbreaks of blood-borne bacterial infections that can occur due to poor dialyzer reprocessing techniques, hemodialyzer reprocessing remains vulnerable to poor implementation. Reprocessing is no longer indicated in order to improve blood-membrane biocompatibility, due to the marked decrease in first-use syndrome since the widespread adoption of synthetic dialysis membranes. Rather, the possibility exists that certain chronic inflammatory responses observed with dialyzer reuse may be deleterious, although these relationships remain speculative. While observational studies have not consistently demonstrated a large excess mortality attributable to reuse, the association of reuse to mortality remains uncertain. Evaluation of the safety of particular reprocessing techniques, germicides, and cleaners has been even harder to examine. Given the widespread availability of inexpensive biocompatible HD membranes and persistent uncertainties about the safety of dialyzer reprocessing, it is time for providers to reexamine their rationale for continuing hemodialyzer reprocessing programs.     

Severe dialyzer dysfunction undetectable by standard reprocessing validation tests

It is generally accepted that careful monitoring of total cell volume and ultrafiltration rates will ensure adequate function of reprocessed dialyzers. During routine urea kinetic measurements we noted that the percent of patients with clearances less than 200 ml/min increased from 5% to 48% despite adherence to these validation tests. As these patients did not have evidence of recirculation in the vascular access, possible causes of dialyzer dysfunction were investigated. Injection of methylene blue into the dialysate port revealed non-uniform flow of dialysate in dialyzers from patients with markedly reduced clearances. In vitro studies of dialyzers subjected to sequential daily reprocessing, without patient exposure, demonstrated that in vitro clearances declined in one lot but not another. The initial clearances of 218 +/- 4 ml/min fell progressively to 112 +/- 18 (P less than 0.001) after 15 reuses. No effects of reprocessing were found in a different lot (230 +/- 2 vs. 226 +/- 4 ml/min). Soaking the dialyzers from the affected lot in either the disinfectant or dialysate solution caused a decline in the clearances which was less than that of serial reuse. Although the magnitude of the problem of dialyzer malfunction with reuse is unknown, careful attention to dialyzer function is warranted in patients treated with reprocessed dialyzers.     

Anaphylactoid reactions associated with reuse of hollow-fiber hemodialyzers and ACE inhibitors.

From July 18 through November 27, 1989, 12 anaphylactoid reactions (ARs) occurred in 10 patients at a hemodialysis center in Virginia. One patient required hospitalization; no patients died. ARs occurred within minutes of initiating dialysis and were characterized by peripheral numbness and tingling, laryngeal edema or angioedema, facial or generalized sensation of warmth, and/or nausea or vomiting. All 12 ARs occurred with dialyzers that had been reprocessed with an automated reprocessing system. A cohort study, including all patients undergoing dialysis sessions on the six days when an AR occurred, showed that the patients who experienced ARs were significantly more likely than patients who did not to be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (7/10 vs. 3/33; relative risk = 7.9; 95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 25.2) and to have been exposed to reused dialyzers rather than to new dialyzers (12/70 sessions vs. 0/31; P = 0.016). In those sessions using a reused dialyzer, the mean number of dialyzer uses in case-sessions was significantly higher than for noncase-sessions (10.3 vs. 6.2; P = 0.016). After reuse of dialyzers was discontinued at the center, no further ARs occurred, despite the continued administration of ACE inhibitors. This is the first report of an outbreak of ARs associated exclusively with reused dialyzers. We hypothesize that interactions between a dialyzer that has been repeatedly reprocessed and reused, blood, and additional factors, such as ACE inhibitors, increased the risk of developing ARs.     

Dialyzer-dependent changes in solute and water permeability with bleach reprocessing

The effects of bleach reprocessing on the performance of high-flux dialyzers have not been comprehensively characterized. We compared the effects of automated bleach/formaldehyde reprocessing on solute and hydraulic permeability for cellulose triacetate (CT190) and polysulfone (F80B) dialyzers using an in vitro model. Dialyzers were studied after initial blood exposure (R0) and after 1 (R1), 5 (R5), 10 (R10), and 15 (R15) reuse cycles. Ultrafiltration coefficient (K(uf)), serial clearances, and/or sieving coefficients (SCs) of urea, creatinine, vancomycin, inulin, myoglobin, and albumin were determined. Urea, creatinine, and vancomycin clearances and SCs did not significantly differ from R0 to R15 with either dialyzer. Inulin clearances and SC also did not significantly change from R0 to R15 for the CT190. However, these same values for the F80B significantly increased (P < 0.05). The inulin clearance and SC values for the CT190 dialyzer were significantly higher than those for the F80B at all stages except R15. Myoglobin clearances significantly increased over 15 reuses for both dialyzers (P < 0.01). However, CT190 myoglobin clearances were significantly higher at all stages (R0 = 37.7 +/- 9.7; R15 = 52.5 +/- 8.8 mL/min) than the F80B (R0 = negligible; R15 = 41.3 +/- 16.5 mL/min; P < 0.01). Albumin pre- and postdialysis SCs significantly increased for both dialyzers (P < 0.01). K(uf) for R0 and R15 were 52.3 +/- 3.3 and 52.6 +/- 7.6 mL/h/mm Hg for CT190 (P = not significant) and 48.8 +/- 4.4 and 87.3 +/- 7.0 mL/h/mm Hg for F80B (P < 0.0001). We conclude that bleach reprocessing significantly increases larger solute and hydraulic permeability of high-flux cellulosic and polysulfone dialyzers. This effect is more pronounced for the polysulfone membrane. Until 10 reuses or greater, the removal of solutes greater than 1,500 d is significantly compromised with the polysulfone dialyzer used in this study.     

Evaluation of a new disinfectant for dialyzer reuse

Glutaraldehyde has been proposed to be as effective as formaldehyde as a disinfectant for reprocessing capillary hemodialyzers. Formaldehyde has become the standard to which all disinfectants are compared. The two products are compared for microbiological efficacy, reuse, membrane integrity, biocompatibility, performance, residual binding and ease of removal, environmental hazards, and immunogenicity. Glutaraldehyde (0.8%) is as effective as 4% formaldehyde in its microbiocidal effect. The disinfectants are comparable except in the following areas: the use of glutaraldehyde leads to lower reuse rates than formaldehyde, significantly less glutaraldehyde than formaldehyde remains in the dialyzer following standard predialysis rinse procedures, and less glutaraldehyde than formaldehyde is found in environmental air.     

An Outbreak of Pyrogenic Reactions in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients Associated with Hemodialyzer Reuse

Abstract: In February 1992, 22 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis at an outpatient dialysis center experienced pyrogenic reactions (PR). The PR rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) during the epidemic (February 3–5) than the pre-epidemic period (November 1, 1992-February 1, 1992). All patients with PR used dialyz-ers that had been manually reprocessed either on February 1 or 3. These dialyzers contained up to 120.8 EU/ml of endotoxin in the blood compartment. The only dialyzer reprocessed before February 1 that was available for analysis was found to contain no detectable endotoxin, while dialyzers reprocessed during the epidemic period contained a median endotoxin concentration of 52.8 EU/ ml. The bioburden of water used to prepare dialysate was in excess of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standard for water, ≤200 colony forming units (CFU)/ml. Samples of treated water collected in the reuse area were within AAMI standards at the time of the investigation (February 11 and February 26), but before the investigation, water samples were assayed with a culture method that could not detect micro-bial concentrations below 10³ CFU/ml. In addition, the treated water feed line to the disinfectant container may never have been disinfected. However, no samples were collected from this line during the investigation. This outbreak emphasizes the need to use water that meets the AAMI bacteriologic and endotoxin standards of ≤200 CFU/ml and/or 5 EU/ml, respectively, for reprocessing hemodialyzers and to ensure that appropriate culture techniques are used for treated water and dialysate.     

The effects of reprocessing high-flux polysulfone dialyzers with peroxyacetic acid on beta 2-microglobulin removal in hemodiafiltration.

The reuse of dialyzers is widely practiced, especially in the United States. Despite this, the effects of reuse on the efficacy of removal of solutes and more recently proteins such as beta 2-microglobulin (beta 2M) are the subject of much debate. There is considerable evidence to suggest that reuse after cleansing and sterilizing with formalin, with or without bleach, maintains dialyzer performance. In this study, we have examined peroxyacetic acid use as the cleansing and sterilizing agent using Renatron machines. We analyzed reuse in 24 patients using polysulfone membranes in a hemodiafiltration (HDF) unit over a 2-year period. The mean maximum number of uses achieved was 20.1 +/- 0.5. Several factors considered clinically to influence the number of reuses achievable (hemoglobin, white blood cell, and platelet levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], and fibrinogen and total protein levels) were found not to influence the maximum number of uses obtainable. We then assessed prospectively the performance of 26 polysulfone dialyzers after peroxyacetic acid reprocessing up to 20 times, particularly with regard to their ability to remove beta 2M. We report that this combination of polysulfone membranes reprocessed with peroxyacetic acid used for HDF up to 20 times exhibits a maintained high level removal of compounds beyond a molecular weight (MW) of 12,000. Any secondary membrane formation that occurs appears not to influence the subsequent removal of beta 2M. Thus, we would recommend the use of peroxyacetic acid for reprocessing dialyzers in a safe and efficacious manner.