| Title |
Hemodiafiltration improves free light chain removal and normalizes κ/λ ratio in hemodialysis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nephrology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40620-015-0207-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chloé Bourguignon, Leïla Chenine, Anne Sophie Bargnoux, Hélène Leray-Moragues, Bernard Canaud, Jean-Paul Cristol, Marion Morena |
| Abstract |
Serum free light chain (FLC) levels are correlated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages and are highest in patients on hemodialysis (HD). Aim of this study was to assess the FLC removal efficiency of Elisio™-210H dialyzer using either high-flux HD or on line high efficiency hemodiafiltration (HDF) modalities in CKD-5D patients. In this prospective and comparative study, 20 CKD-5D patients free from multiple myeloma were randomized in two groups: HD versus on line HDF. All patients were dialyzed with Elisio™-210H dialyzer. Serum samples were collected before and after the midweek dialysis session, before randomization and at the end of the study to measure κ and λ FLC concentrations. Reduction ratios were corrected for net ultrafiltration. For both HD and HDF mode, κ and λ FLC concentrations were significantly lower after dialysis than before but median reductions in κ and λ FLC levels were significantly higher in HDF versus HD groups (κ 73.5 vs. 65.5 %, p = 0.04 and λ 51.0 vs. 36.6 %, p = 0.07). After dialysis, all κ/λ ratio values were between 0.26 and 1.65 which is the reference range described in subjects with normal kidney function, for both HD and HDF groups (median κ/λ ratios were 0.80 [0.47-1.22] and 0.67 [0.50-0.79] respectively). This study shows the superiority of on line HDF compared with HD to remove both κ and λ FLC. Moreover, all post-dialysis κ/λ ratios reached normal reference range. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Philippines | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,183,831
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#158
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,728
of 269,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them