Endotoxin Size in Hemodialysis Solutions: Modifications in Presence of Concentrated Salt Solutions and Bacterial Products
Pyrogenic reactions for which no cause can be found are common in hemodialysis, using non-sterile concentrated salt solutions and membranes which usually retain endotoxins (pore size: 10,000 to 30,000 D). If we admit that endotoxins, the most important pyrogens, might be responsible for these observations, we have to prove that they can cross hemodialysis devices. It is recognized that lipopolysaccharides (LPS) can exist in different forms, aggregated, mono or bi-layer subunits. This has been related to the ionic conditions, the presence of detergent or EDTA (2, 5, 6). In hemodialysis, the extent of the pyrogenic episodes has been shown to depend not only on the presence of gram positive bacteria or, in some cases, Halobacterium species (3). These reactions have only been observed for 40 to 800 mmol.1−1 HCO3 solutions. We examined the possibility that, under the ionic conditions described above, endotoxins might be the cause of pyrogenic effects associated with hemodialysis. If this were true, we would expect that, after filtration under various conditions, residual endotoxin would be detected in ultra-filtered solutions. Two different procedures were used to meet most of the clinical conditions: filtration experiments were performed with ultra-filters (pore size: 20,000 to 100,000 D), or true hemodialysis devices. Endotoxins were associated with three hemolytic Staphylococcus and two other species commonly isolated in concentrated salt solutions. Moreover, it was known that the effect of toxic shock syndrome toxin (TSS — Staphylococcus) is potentiated by small amount of endotoxin (1), and this unexplained observation supports our Staphylococcus-endotoxin interaction study.
KeywordsToxic Shock Syndrome Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin Concentrate Salt Solution Clostridium Sporogenes
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Azavedo, J. C. S., Hartigan, P. J.. de Saxe, M. 1985, Gram-negative endotoxins and staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, in: “Bacterial Endotoxins, Structure, Biomedical Detection with the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Test, Alan R. Liss, Inc., p. 419–430.Google Scholar
- 2.Good, C. M. and Lane, H. E., 1977, The biochemistry of pyrogens. Bull. Parent. Drug. Assoc. 31: 116.Google Scholar
- 3.Goury, V., Guyomard, S., Mollet, M., Man, N. K., Hamon, M. and Darbord, J. C., 1987, Role des bacteries halophiles ou halotphiles ou halotrophes dans les pathologies chromiques de dialyse au long cours. Bull. Acad. Natle. Med. 171: 561.Google Scholar
- 4.Guyomard, S., Goury, V. and Darbord, J. C., 1988, Effects of ionizing radiations on bacterial endotoxins: comparison between gamma radiations and accelerated electrons. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 31: 679.Google Scholar
- 5.Ribi, E., Anacker, R. L., Brown, R., Haskins, W. T., Malhgren, B., Milner, K. C. and Rudback, J. K., 1966, Reaction of endotoxin and surfactants. J. Bact. 92: 1493.Google Scholar
- 6.Rosen, F. S., Skarnes, R. C., Landy, M. and Shear, M. J., 1958, Inactivation of endotoxin by a humoral component. III. Role of divalent cation and a dialysable component. J. Exp. Med. 108: 701.Google Scholar
- 7.Rudback, J. K.,Akiya, F. I., Elin, R. J., Hochstein, H. D., Luoma, M. K., Milner, E. C. B., Milner, K. C. and Thomas, K. R., 1976, Preparation and properties of a national reference endotoxin. J. of Clinical Microbiol. 13: 21.Google Scholar
- 8.Sweadner, K. J., Forte, M. and Nelsen, L. L., 1977, Filtration removal of endotoxin (pyrogens) in solutions in different stages of aggregation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34: 382.Google Scholar