Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:37:59.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploration of Polytetrafluoroethylene as a Potential Material Replacement for Hemodialysis Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

Patrick E. Nichols
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Utah, 122 S. Central Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
Jeffrey S. Bates*
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Utah, 122 S. Central Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
Taylor D. Sparks
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Utah, 122 S. Central Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
*
Get access

Abstract

Dialysis is the process by which an artificial kidney device removes waste and excess water from a patient. An outstanding problem with dialysis is that the body has a remarkable immune function where proteins and antigens mark foreign objects as possible threats despite the biocompatibility of the material. Upon adhesion to polymeric materials used currently in dialysis, proteins are lost. In this study, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is investigated as a potential replacement material for dialysis tubing because of its unreactive nature. The focus is to determine if PTFE will prove a viable material in minimizing protein adhesion and further reducing antibody loss of the patient. Protein loss as a function of filtration time was measured. PVC and PTFE materials were investigated following the same battery of testing where the protein concentrations in the blood were characterized using UV Visible spectrophotometry. Results demonstrate a loss of nearly 12 percent of blood proteins to the PVC material over the course of a typical dialysis treatment. Conversely, the protein loss due to adhesion to PTFE was less than two percent.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergström, J. Nutrition and mortality in hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995;6(5): 13291341.Google Scholar
Theofilou, P. Quality of life in patients undergoing hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis treatment. Journal of clinical medicine research. 2011;3(3): 132.Google Scholar
Son, YJ, Choi, KS, Park, YR, Bae, JS, Lee, JB. Depression, symptoms and the quality of life in patients on hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease. Am J Nephrol. 2009;29(1): 3642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pifer, TB, Mccullough, KP, Port, FK, et al. Mortality risk in hemodialysis patients and changes in nutritional indicators: DOPPS. Kidney international. 2002;62(6): 22382245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locatelli, F, Fouque, D, Heimburger, O, et al. Nutritional status in dialysis patients: a European consensus. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17(4): 563572.Google Scholar
Kopple, JD. Effect of nutrition on morbidity and mortality in maintenance dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 1994;24(6): 10021009.Google Scholar
Meyer, KB, Espindle, DM, DeGiacomo, JM, Jenuleson, CS, Kurtin, PS, Davies, AR. Monitoring dialysis patients' health status. Am J Kidney Dis. 1994;24(2): 267279.Google Scholar
Kao, WJ. Evaluation of protein-modulated macrophage behavior on biomaterials: designing biomimetic materials for cellular engineering. Biomaterials. 1999;20(23-24): 22132221.Google Scholar
Black, J. An overview of the biological performance of materials for orthopaedic implants [proceedings]. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 1977;38(2): 6566.Google Scholar
Black, J. Biological performance of materials : fundamentals of biocompatibility. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Taylor & Francis; 2006.Google Scholar
Andrade, J, Hlady, V. Protein adsorption and materials biocompatibility: a tutorial review and suggested hypotheses. Biopolymers/Non-Exclusion HPLC: Springer; 1986:163.Google Scholar
Papaioannou, TG, Stefanadis, C. Vascular wall shear stress: basic principles and methods. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2005;46(1): 915.Google Scholar
Acton, QA. Nitriles– Advances in Research and Application: 2013 2013.Google Scholar
Iyasere, OU, Brown, EA, Johansson, L, et al. Quality of Life and Physical Function in Older Patients on Dialysis: A Comparison of Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis with Hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015.Google Scholar
Simonian, MH, Smith, JA. Spectrophotometric and colorimetric determination of protein concentration. Current protocols in molecular biology. 2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aitken, A, Learmonth, M. Protein determination by UV absorption. The protein protocols handbook: Springer; 1996:36.Google Scholar
Bates, JS, Whitson, LR, Albertson, KM, et al. Molecular Imprinted Hydrogels in Drug Delivery Applications. MRS Proceedings. Vol 1797: Cambridge Univ Press; 2015:mrss15–2132190.Google Scholar
Bates, J. pH-RESPONSIVE HYDROGEL-BASED CHEMOMECHANICAL, The University of Utah; 2013.Google Scholar
Chi, EY, Krishnan, S, Randolph, TW, Carpenter, JF. Physical stability of proteins in aqueous solution: mechanism and driving forces in nonnative protein aggregation. Pharm Res. 2003;20(9): 13251336.Google Scholar
Sun, TT, Green, H. Immunofluorescent staining of keratin fibers in cultured cells. Cell. 1978;14(3): 469476.Google Scholar
Faouzi, MA, Dine, T, Gressier, B, et al. Exposure of hemodialysis patients to di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate. Int J Pharm. 1999;180(1): 113121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed