Medical Toxicology and Adverse Drug Experience

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 341–349 | Cite as

Drug Removal by Continuous Arteriovenous Haemofiltration

A Review of the Evidence in Poisoned Patients
  • Thomas A. Golper
  • William M. Bennett
Leading Article


Drug Removal Ultrafiltration Rate Drug Protein Binding Sieve Coefficient Intrinsic Membrane Property 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anton AH. Increasing activity of sulfonamides with displacing agents. Annals of the New York Academy of the Sciences 226: 273–292, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basile C, DiMaggio A, Curino E, Scatizzi A. Pharmacokinetics of netilmicin in hypertonic hemodiafiltration and standard hemodialysis. Clinical Nephrology 24: 305–309, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett WM, Aronoff GR, Golper TA, Morrison G, Singer I, et al. Drug prescribing in renal failure: dosing guidelines for adults, 1st ed. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, 1987Google Scholar
  4. Blye E, Lorch J, Cortell S. Extracorporeal therapy in the treatment of intoxication. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 3: 321–338, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Colton CK, Henderson LW, Ford CA, Lysaght MJ. Kinetics of hemodiafiltration. I. In vitro transport characteristics of a hollow fiber blood ultrafilter. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 85: 355–371, 1975Google Scholar
  6. Cutler RE, Forland SC, St John Hammond PG, Evans JR. Extracorporeal removal of drugs and poisons by hemodialysis and hemoperfusion. Annual Reviews of Pharmacology and Toxicology 27: 169–191, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayton PG, Israili ZH, Perel JM. Influence of binding on drug metabolism and distribution. Annals of the New York Academy of the Sciences 226: 172–194, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Domoto DT, Brown WM, Bruggensmith P. Removal of toxic levels on N-acetylprocainamide with continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration or continuous arteriovenous hemodiafiltration. Annals of Internal Medicine 106: 550–552, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Frigon RP, Leypoldt JK, Alford MF, Uyeji S, Hendersen LW. Hemofilter solute sieving is not governed by dynamically polarized protein. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 30: 486–490, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelfand MC, Winchester JF. Hemoperfusion in drug overdose: a technique when conservative management is not sufficient. Clinical Toxicology 17: 583–602, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geronemus R, Schneider N. Continuous arteriovenous hemodialysis: a new modality for treatment of acute renal failure. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 30: 610–613, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson TP. Problems in designing hemodialysis drug studies. Pharmacotherapy 5: 23–29, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Golper TA. Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration in acute renal failure. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 6: 373–386, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Golper TA, Pulliam J, Bennett WM. Removal of therapeutic drugs by continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration. Archives of Internal Medicine 145: 1651–1652, 1985aPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Golper TA, Ronco C, Kaplan AA. Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration: improvements, modifications and future directions. Seminars in Dialysis 1: 50–54, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golper TA, Saad AM. Gentamicin and phenytoin in vitro sieving characteristics through polysulfone hemofilters: effect of flow rate, drug concentration and solvent systems. Kidney International 30: 937–943, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golper TA, Wedel SK, Kaplan AA, Saad A-M, Donta ST, et al. Drug removal during continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration: theory and clinical observations. International Journal of Artificial Organs 8: 307–312, 1985bPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulyassy PF, Depner TA. Impaired binding of drugs and endogenous ligands in renal disease. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2: 578–601, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gwilt PR, Perrier D. Plasma protein binding and distribution characteristics of drugs as indices of their haemodialyzability. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 24: 154–161, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Haas T, Gongardi G, Villeboeuf F, de Viel E, Fournier JF, et al. Plasma kinetics of small molecules during and after hemofiltration: decrease in hemofiltration efficiency related to increase in ultrafiltration rate. Clinical Nephrology 19: 193–200, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton R, Ford C, Colton C, Cross R, Steinmuller S, Henderson L. Blood cleansing by diafiltration in uremic dog and man. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 17: 259–265, 1971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Heath A, Delin K, Eden E, Märtensson E, Selander D, et al. Hemoperfusion with Amberlite resin in the treatment of self poisoning. Acta Medica Scandinavica 207: 455–460, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson LW. Hemodialysis: rationale and physical principles. In Brenner & Rector (Eds) The kidney, 1st ed., pp. 1643–1671, WB Saunders & Co. Philadelphia, 1976Google Scholar
  24. Henderson LW, Ford C, Colton CK, Bluemle LW, Bixler HJ. Uremic blood cleansing by diafiitration using a hollow-fiber ultrafilter. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 16: 107–112, 1970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Henderson LW, Silverstein ME, Ford CA, Lysaght MJ. Clinical response to maintenance hemodiafiltration. Kidney International 2: S58–S63, 1975Google Scholar
  26. Hoy WE, Gibson TP, Rivero AJ, Jain VK, Talley TT, et al. XAD-4 resin hemoperfusion for digitoxic patients with renal failure. Kidney International 23: 79–82, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan AA, Longnecker RE, Folkert VW. Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration. Annals of Internal Medicine 100: 358–367, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan AA, Longnecker RE, Folkert VW. Continuous hemofiltration: in response. Correspondence. Annals of Internal Medicine 101: 145–146, 1984Google Scholar
  29. Keller F, Wilms H, Schulte G, Offerman G, Molzahn M. Effect of plasma protein binding, volume of distribution and molecular weight on the fraction of drugs eliminated by hemodialysis. Clinical Nephrology 19: 201–206, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein E, Holland FF, Eberle K. Rejection of solutes by hemofiltration membranes. ASAIO Journal 1: 15–23, 1978Google Scholar
  31. Kraft D, Lode H. Elimination of ampicillin and gentamicin by hemofiltration. Klinische Wochenschrift 57: 195–196, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer P, Wigger W, Rieger J, Matthaei D, Scheler F. Arteriovenous hemofiltration: a new and simple method for treatment of overhydrated patients resistant to diuretics. Klinische Wochenschrift 55: 1121–1122, 1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kronfol N, Lau A. Tobramycin binds to the filter membrane during CAVH. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Acute Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy, Ft. Lauderdale, March, 1987. Abstract, p. 217, 1987Google Scholar
  34. Kronfol NO, Lau AH, Colon-Rivera J, Libertin CL. Effect of CAVH membrane types on drug-sieving coefficients and clearances. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 22: 85–87, 1986Google Scholar
  35. Lau AH, Libertin CR, Pyle K, Kronfol NO. Removal of cephalosporins by continuous hemofiltration. International Journal of Artificial Organs, in press, 1988Google Scholar
  36. Leypoldt JK, Frigon RP, Henderson LW. Dextran sieving coefficients of hemofilter membranes. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 29: 678–683, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Leypoldt JK, Frigon RP, Henderson LW. Macromolecular charge affects hemofilter solute sieving. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 32: 384–387, 1986Google Scholar
  38. Lysaght MJ. An experimental model for the ultrafiltration of sodium ion from blood or plasma. Blood Purification 1: 25–30, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNamara PJ, Lalka D, Gibaldi M. Endogenous accumulation products and serum protein binding in uremia. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 98: 740, 1981Google Scholar
  40. Paganini EP, Hague J, Whitman G, Nakamoto S. Amino acid balance in patients with oliguric renal failure undergoing slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF). Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 28: 615–620, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Paganini EP, O’Hara P, Nakamoto S. Slow continuous ultrafiltration in hemodialysis resistant oliguric acute renal failure patients. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 30: 173–177, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pauls A, Grigoleit H-G, Von Herrath D, Schaefer K. Sequential plasma filtration, alteration of plasma hemofiltration, and dialysis for drug removal. (Abstract.) Artificial Organs 5: 54, 1981Google Scholar
  43. Pauls A, Grigoleit H-G, Von Herrath D, Schaefer K. Comparison of drug elimination by current methods of blood purification. Blood Purification 2: 14–22, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reidenberg MM. The binding of drugs to plasma proteins and the interpretation of measurements of plasma concentration of drugs in patients with poor renal function. American Journal of Medicine 62: 460–470, 1977Google Scholar
  45. Reidenberg MM, Affrime M. Influence of disease on binding of drugs to plasma proteins. Annals of the New York Academy of the Sciences 226: 115–126, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Röckel A, Gilge U, Liewald A, Heidland A. Elimination of low molecular weight proteins during hemofiltration. Artificial Organs 6: 307–311, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ronco C, Brendolan A, Borin D, Bragantini L, Fabris A, et al. Permeability characteristics of polysulfonic membranes in CAVH. In Sieberth & Mann (Eds) Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration (CAVH), pp. 59–63, Karger, Basel, 1985Google Scholar
  48. Rosansky SJ, Richards F. A comparison of hemodialysis, hemoperfusion and combined HD-HP for treatment of procainamide poisoning. (Abstract.) Kidney International 25: 191, 1984Google Scholar
  49. Rumpf KW, Rieger J, Ansorg R, Doht B, Scheler F. Binding of antibiotics by dialysis membranes and its clinical relevance. Proceedings of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association 14: 607–609, 1978Google Scholar
  50. Rumpf KW, Rieger J, Doht B, Ansorg R, Scheler F. Drug elimination by hemofiltration. Journal of Dialysis 1: 677–688, 1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sigler MH, Teehan BP. Solute transport in continuous hemodialysis: a new treatment for acute renal failure. Kidney International 32: 562–571, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suh B, Craig WA, England AC, Elliot RL. Effect of the free fatty acids on protein binding of antimicrobial agents. Journal of Infectious Diseases 143: 609–616, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tillement JP, Lhoste F, Fuidicelli TF. Diseases and drug protein binding Clinical Pharmacokinetics 3: 144–154, 1978Google Scholar
  54. Tilstone WJ, Winchester JF, Reavey PC. The use of pharmacokinetic principles in determining the effectiveness of removal of toxins from blood. Clinical Pharmacology 4: 23–37, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vanholder R, Van Landschoot N, De Smet R, Schouts A, Ringoir S. Drug protein binding in chronic renal failure: evaluation of nine drugs. Kidney International 33: 996–1004, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winchester JF. Hemoperfusion. In Drukker et al. (Eds) Replacement of renal function, 2nd ed., pp. 305–322, Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winchester JF, Gelfand MC, Knepshield JH, Schreiner GE. Dialysis and hemoperfusion of poisons and drugs — update. Transactions — American Society for Artificial Internal Organs 23: 762–842, 1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ADIS Press Limited 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Golper
    • 1
    • 2
  • William M. Bennett
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of NephrologyOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Veterans Administration Medical CenterPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations