Advertisement

pp 1-9 | Cite as

Protein-Bound Solute Clearance During Hemodialysis

  • Małgorzata Gomółka
  • Longin NiemczykEmail author
  • Katarzyna Szamotulska
  • Aleksandra Wyczałkowska-Tomasik
  • Aleksandra Rymarz
  • Jerzy Smoszna
  • Mariusz Jasik
  • Leszek Pączek
  • Stanisław Niemczyk
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series

Abstract

Indoxyl sulfate (IS) and p-cresol sulfate (p-CS) are protein-bound solutes that accumulate in the blood serum in chronic kidney disease and have a detrimental effect on the kidney and other organs’ function. This study seeks to define the effectiveness of IS and p-CS clearance after single dialysis sessions and after 8-week-long cycles of hemodialysis using the following different dialysis modalities in succession: low-flux hemodialysis (lfHD), high-flux hemodialysis (hfHD), and post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF). We also investigated to what extent IS and p-CS serum content would associate with some other biochemical indices in patients with chronic kidney diseases. The study included 21 uremic patients. We found that a single session of each modality effectively decreased the content of both IS and p-CS, with the predominance of p-CS decrease. There were no appreciable differences depending on the modality of hemodialysis chosen. However, the leaching effect tended to wear off with the weeks’ long dialysis cycles. We further found that a greater inflammation-prone level of hsCRP evoked by dialysis led to a greater removal of solutes, and thus their decrease in the serum, during a single dialysis session. Reversely, a greater protein level might result in a greater solute binding and a decrease in removal. We conclude that there are no major differences in the serum clearance of IS and p-CS depending on the dialysis modality. These protein-bound toxins are significantly cleared from the serum already during the first dialysis session, but their level tends to revert during weeks’ long dialysis sessions.

Keywords

Blood toxin clearance Cresol sulfate Hemodiafiltration Hemodialysis Indoxyl sulfate Protein-bound solutes 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funded by grant no. 257 from the Military Institute of Medicine in Warsaw, Poland.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in relations to this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Military Institute of Medicine in Warsaw, Poland.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Banerjee T, Meyer TW, Shafi T, Hostetter TH, Melamed M, Zhu Y, Powe NR (2017) Free and total p-cresol sulfate and infectious hospitalizations in hemodialysis patients in CHOICE and HEMO. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(6):e5799Google Scholar
  2. Camacho O, Rosales MC, Shafi T, Fullman J, Plummer NS, Meyer TW, Sirich TL (2016) Effect of a sustained difference in hemodialytic clearance on the plasma levels of p–cresol sulfate and indoxyl sulfate. Nephrol Dial Transplant 31:1335–1341Google Scholar
  3. Canaud B, Bragg–Gresham JL, Marshall MR, Desmeueles S, Gillespie BW, Depner T, Klassen P, Port FK (2006) Mortality risk for patients receiving hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis: European results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int 69:2087–2093Google Scholar
  4. Deltombe O, de Loor H, Glorieux G, Dhondt A, Van Biesen W, Meijers B, Eloot S (2017) Exploring binding characteristics and the related competition of protein–bound uremic toxins. Biochimie 139:20–26Google Scholar
  5. Dou L, Jourde–Chiche N, Faure V, Cerini C, Berland Y, Dignat–George F, Brunet P (2007) The uremic solute indoxyl sulfate induces oxidative stress in endothelial cells. J Thromb Haemost 5:1302–1308Google Scholar
  6. Fagugli RM, De Smet R, Buoncristiani U, Lameire N, Vanholder R (2002) Behavior of non-protein-bound and protein-bound uremic solutes during daily hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 40:339–347Google Scholar
  7. Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Sarnak MJ (1998) Epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in chronic renal disease. J Am SocNephrol 9:16–23Google Scholar
  8. Grooteman MP, van den Dorpel MA, Bots ML, Penne EL, van der Weerd NC, Mazairac AH, den Hoedt CH, van der Tweel I, Levesque R, Nube MJ, ter Wee PM, Blankestijn PJ, CONTRAST Investigators (2012) Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all–cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:1087–1096Google Scholar
  9. Ichii O, Otsuka–Kanazawa S, Nakamura T, Ueno M, Kon Y, Chen W, Rosenberg AZ, Kopp JB (2014) Podocyte injury caused by indoxyl sulfate, a uremic toxin and aryl–hydrocarbon receptor ligand. PLoS One 9:e108448Google Scholar
  10. Ito S, Yoshida M (2014) Protein–bound uremic toxins: new culprits of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease patients. Toxins (Basel) 6:665–678Google Scholar
  11. Itoh Y, Ezawa A, Kikuchi K, Tsuruta Y, Niwa T (2012) Protein–bound uremic toxins in hemodialysis patients measured by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and their effects on endothelial ROS production. Anal Bioanal Chem 403:1841–1850Google Scholar
  12. Krieter DH, Hackl A, Rodriguez A, Chenine L, Moragues HL, Lemke HD, Wanner C, Cannaud B (2010) Protein–bound uraemic toxin removal in haemodialysis and post–dilution haemodiafiltration. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:212–218Google Scholar
  13. Lekawanvijit S (2015) Role of gut–derived protein–bound uremic toxins in cardiorenal syndrome and potential treatment modalities. Circ J 79:2088–2097Google Scholar
  14. Maduell F, Moreso F, Pons M, Ramos R, Mora–Macia J, Carreras J, Soler J, Torres F, Campistol JM, Martinez–Castelao A, ESHOL Study Group (2013) High–efficiency postdilution online hemodiafiltration reduces all–cause mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 24:487–497Google Scholar
  15. Meert N, Eloot S, Waterloos MA, Van Landschoot M, Dhondt A, Glorieux G, Ledebo I, Vanholder R (2009) Effective removal of protein–bound uraemic solutes by different convective strategies: a prospective trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:562–570Google Scholar
  16. Meert N, Waterloos MA, Van Landschoot M, Dhondt A, Ledebo I, Glorieux G, Goeman J, Van der Eycken J, Vanholder R (2010) Prospective evaluation of the change of predialysis protein–bound uremic solute concentration with postdilution online hemodiafiltration. Artif Organs 34:580–585Google Scholar
  17. Meert N, Eloot S, Schepers E, Lemke HD, Dhondt A, Glorieux G, Van Landschoot M, Waterloos MA, Vanholder R (2011) Comparison of removal capacity of two consecutive generations of high–flux dialysers during different treatment modalities. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:2624–2630Google Scholar
  18. Mostovaya IM, Blankestijn PJ, Bots ML, Covic A, Davenport A, Grooteman MP, Hegbrant J, Locatelli F, Vanholder R, Nube MJ, EUDIAL1 – an official ERA–EDTA Working Group (2014) Clinical evidence on hemodiafiltration: a systematic review and a meta–analysis. Semin Dial 27:119–127Google Scholar
  19. Natsuizaka M, Ohashi S, Wong GS, Ahmadi A, Kalman RA, Budo D, AJ K–S, Herlyn M, Diehl JA, Nakagawa H (2010) Insulin–like growth factor–binding protein–3 promotes transforming growth factor–1β–mediated epithelial–to–mesenchymal transition and motility in transformed human esophageal cells. Carcinogenesis 31:1344–1353Google Scholar
  20. Nazzal L, Roberts J, Singh P, Jhawar S, Matalon A, Gao Z, Holzman R, Liebes L, Blaser MJ, Lowenstein J (2017) Microbiome perturbation by oral vancomycin reduces plasma concentration of two gut–derived uremic solutes, indoxyl sulfate and p–cresyl sulfate, in end–stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 32:1809–1817Google Scholar
  21. Ok E, Asci G, Toz H, Ok ES, Kircelli F, Yilmaz M, Hur E, demiric MS, Duman S, Basci A, Adam SM, Isik IO, Zengin M, Suleymanlar G, Yilmaz ME, Ozkahya M, Turkish Online Haemodiafiltration Study (2013) Mortality and cardiovascular events in online–hemodiafiltration (OL–HDF) compared with high–flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL–HDF study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:192–202Google Scholar
  22. Panichi V, Rizza GM, Paoletti S, Bigazzi R, Aloisi M, Brasotti G, Rindi P, Donati G, Antonelli A, Panicucci E, Tripepi G, Tetta C, Palla R, RISCAVID Study Group (2008) Chronic inflammation and mortality in haemodialysis: effect of different renal replacement therapies. Results from the RISCAVID study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23:2337–2343Google Scholar
  23. Shafi T, Schirich TL, Mayer TW, Hostetter TH, Plummer NS, Hwang S, Melamed ML, Banerjee T, Coresh J, Powe NR (2017) Results of HEMO Study suggest that p–cresol sulfate and indoxyl sulfate are not associated with cardiovascular outcomes. Kidney Int 92:1482–1492Google Scholar
  24. Shimizu H, Bolati D, Adijiang A, Adelibieke Y, Muteliefu G, Enomoto A, Higashiyama Y, Higuchi Y, Nishijima F, Niwa T (2011) Indoxyl sulfate downregulates renal expression of Klotho through production of ROS and activation of nuclear factor–κb. Am J Nephrol 33:319–324Google Scholar
  25. Sirich TL, Fong K, Larive B, Beck GJ, Chertow GM, Levin NW, Kliger AS, Plummer NS, Meyer TW, Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Trial Group (2017) Limited reduction in uremic solute concentrations with increased dialysis frequency and time in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial. Kidney Int 91:1186–1192Google Scholar
  26. Sun CY, Chang SC, Wu MS (2012) Uremic toxins induce kidney fibrosis by activating intrarenal renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system associated epithelial–to–mesenchymal transition. PLoS One 7:e34026Google Scholar
  27. Sun CY, Cheng ML, Pan HC, Lee JH, Lee CC (2017) Protein–bound uremic toxins impaired mitochondrial dynamics and functions. Oncotarget 8:77722–77733Google Scholar
  28. Tattersal JE, Ward RA, EUDIAL Group (2013) Online haemodiafiltration: definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:542–550Google Scholar
  29. Vanholder RC, Eloot S, Glorieux GL (2016) Future avenues to decrease uremic toxin concentration. Am J Kidney Dis 67:664–676Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Małgorzata Gomółka
    • 1
  • Longin Niemczyk
    • 2
    Email author
  • Katarzyna Szamotulska
    • 3
  • Aleksandra Wyczałkowska-Tomasik
    • 4
  • Aleksandra Rymarz
    • 1
  • Jerzy Smoszna
    • 1
  • Mariusz Jasik
    • 5
  • Leszek Pączek
    • 4
  • Stanisław Niemczyk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology and DialysisMilitary Institute of MedicineWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Internal MedicineWarsaw Medical UniversityWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsInstitute of Mother and Child in WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Department of Immunology, Transplantology and Internal MedicineWarsaw Medical UniversityWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWarsaw Medical UniversityWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations