Baxter jumping back into home hemo

Hi y’all,

Well, here’s an interesting new development hot off the presses: <> We’ll have to keep an eye out for what they come up with.

Hi Folks

I looked at sites ,but maybe I missed the whens etc. Have they started or have blueprints. Time line , size etc.

I don’t think they’ve disclosed that yet–probably because if they are just getting started, there’s nothing to disclose. We’ll just have to keep an eye out to see what they’re up to.

I’d really like to read this, but the link is not coming up

try this link:

Thanks, Unregistered. I’m not sure why it truncated my URL, but yours works. :smiley:

Remember this?

I sure do, and thanks for reminding of other work DEKA has done.

Done? Or is still doing?

“698545: Aksys, Ltd. The patent has been assigned to HHD LLC”

“In connection with the collaboration, Baxter has purchased an option to acquire the assets of HHD, LLC and will fund DEKA’s related research and development activities.”

Ohhh. Interesting-er and interesting-er. :wink:

Just thought I’d post this link:)

C-Tech is the company that made the old, now historical REDY machines! :slight_smile:

JW :slight_smile:

"C-Tech Biomedical, Inc. is a diversified biomedical company specializing in the design, development, and maintenance of hemodialysis equipment. C-Tech Biomedical, Inc. was founded in 1995 while servicing two hospitals in the Los Angeles area. Over the past 5 years, C-Tech Biomedical, Inc. has focused its business strategies into establishing its identity as a premium service and maintenance provider for hemodialysis equipment. "

During that time, C-Tech’s management team has recognized that the portable hemodialysis equipment currently in operation today is outdated and antiquated. It has been nearly 10 years since a new portable hemodialysis machine has been introduced into the market. Based on this, C-Tech’s management launched a program to redesign and develop the next portable hemodialysis machine, the RDS 3001™.

[quote=Dori Schatell;14125]Hi y’all,

Well, here’s an interesting new development hot off the presses: <> We’ll have to keep an eye out for what they come up with.[/quote]

Oh dear, wow! I mean another Home Dialysis competitor jumping in… I wonder what secret wonder they have under their sleeves and wonder how Nxstage feels about that.

Teh race is on!!

Though if you read the disclaimer on the bottom, its not for use in the United States at this time.

It is interesting - I just spent some time with a group from DEKA over the last two days (I was disappointed that they used a rental car rather then a fleet of Segways - Segway production/marketing has been spun off). Making the ideal machine is not an easy task, which shouldn’t surprise any of us.

I wonder if that is because the Allient uses what sounds to be the same sorbent process. Patent issues?

Gus I’m moving my reply to your comment from my boat travel thread to here to try keep things organized.

We’ve had this conversation before, often as part of other discussions but what is your ideal dialysis machine?

Maybe a question in three parts.
First don’t edit yourself: Putting aside what you think is possible engineering-wise what is your ideal machine?
Second: What is your understanding of the design trade-offs and how do weigh the various trade-offs that you perceive?
Third: What one thing would make your dialysis life easier today?

Here are my answers:
Putting aside what you think is possible engineering-wise what is your ideal machine?
My ideal machine is green - energy, water and waste efficient while still providing clinically as much dialysis as can be provided in a unit of time. It would be bio-compatible and transportable in whole or in components so that each component weighed less than 20KG.
What is your understanding of the design trade-offs and how do [you] weigh the various trade-offs that you perceive?
I think there is a trade-off between dialysate flow rates and dialysate purity, between size of machine and dialysate flow rates and/or cost and dialysate flow rates. I think there is a trade-off between cost and size, or features and size.
What one thing would make your dialysis life easier today?
Spending less time to get more dialysis efficiency.


I’ve come to the conclusion that the single essential requirement for any new home dialysis machine is that it must be portable. The reason is not travel, although travel is very nice for a minority of home patients (we use NxStage exclusively for travel – still use 2008K at home). Rather, the reason for the portability requirement is to support a “swap out” maintenance philosophy. There is no way a company can support a field sales organization without many, many thousands of units in use, given the severe constraints on pricing because of Medicare reimbursement limitations on its customers. I’m not even sure a big company like Fresenius could be profitable making house calls to service single machines.

Every new product must be expected to have problems and also opportunities for upgrading. Aksys, for example, seemed like a very good product with no more problems than most new, innovative products. It is likely it would still be around if it had not been necessary to deal with those problems in the field, a prohibitive expense.

There are obviously many other desirable requirements for a new machine, but most could added in a service center if they were missed in the initial design as could problem “fixes” and the manufacturer could swap out or replace existing machines as appropriate via UPS. The absence of portability is, however, fatal

You noted components should not weigh more than 20 kg. I agree – I think the OSHA requirement for lifting by a single person is 40 lbs. I suspect shipping costs also jump when weight requires a two man crew. Lugging a 75 lb NxStage machine to the second floor by myself is close to my limit. I’m concerned about the Allient machine reported to be about 100 lbs.

I hope companies considering enetering the home market will carefully consider this. The more choice and competition in the home market we have the faster the market will develop and the better off we will all be.


Mel I think the swap service approach is compelling. When I think of the 350-450 pound Aksys it is interesting to consider how it could have been compartmentalized. The Aksys was three machines in one or at least had three distinct operating phases: Making the ultra pure dialysate, providing dialysis, sterilizing the blood tubing set (BTS).

The one area that might offer an unexploited opportunity - is the reuse and sterilization of the BTS. The Aksys limited reuse to 30 times or rather 30 sterilization cycles but there was no technical reason to do so. Additional uses per BTS would allow more money to be spent on the BTS, which would allow for high end artificial kidneys and blood tubing materials. I wonder if the BTS and sterilization process could be engineered into a single unit. A unit that could be maintained or “recharged” by the local provider or via ground shipping. This would leave the treatment control unit/interface element and the dialysate preparation module (DPM).

The dialysis control unit (DCU) could act as the brains, managing the interface with the DPM, monitoring the treatment parameters and feeding information to a touchscreen interface. The DCU should be able to be sized to allow swap out and providing a real time data linkage would allow remote diagnostics. Meeting your sensible cost efficient service requirements.

This leaves the DPM. Obviously the PureFlow is such a machine - using DI (deionization) technology. DI technology appeals to me because of it’s greenness, a nearly 1 to 1 ratio of water input to ultra pure output. However, my provider much prefers the RO approach which is much less green - something like a 20 to 1 ratio* of water input to water output. One can imagine solutions - put a DI in front of an RO. Or submicron or endotoxin/ultrafilter downstream of the DI unit. Or an ultraviolet (UV) irradiator with the submicron or endotoxin/ultrafilter located after the UV irradiator. Hmmm sounds expensive.

Dialysate is the tripping point as near as I can tell. Bags offer one solution but that drastically limits Qd, a serious compromise in my book. So what about non- ultra pure as a backup travel option? I guess I’d be willing to accept incenter standard water during travel, maybe that is easier to make but I don’t know how one could handle the water testing? Plus with non-injectable quality dialysate you’d impact the reusability and potentially change the process putting saline back into the treatment model. So the only option left that I can see is a DPM that uses the Renal Solution’s sorbent technology. It’d be nice to see a sorbent DPM that works with the System One and weighs less than 20KG between uses.

Maybe that’s what we really need: for dialysis equipment to be open source with a variety of manufacturers, so we could mix and match components to meet our needs.

*EDIT: I originally said that RO had a 500 to 1 ratio of input water to out put water - this is way off it is more along the line of 20 to 1. I Edited my post to correct this.