Blood purification · 2022
Protein Loss in Peritoneal Effluent: Different Meaning for 24-h versus PET Samples.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Malho Guedes Anabela, Calças Marques Roberto, Domingos Ana Teresa, Laranjo Céu, Silva Ana Paula, Rodrigues Anabela
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Quantification of peritoneal protein loss (PPL) may be expressed according to a timely collection (24-h measurement or 4-h PET assessment) and as a concentration. The aim of this study was to compare the quantification methods of 24-h and 4-h collections.
METHODS: This study included 81 prevalent peritoneal dialysis patients. Demographics and clinical and bioelectrical impedance features were registered. PPL was measured (4-h PET and 24-h results) and peritoneal protein clearance was calculated. A linear regression model was performed.
RESULTS: Age and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (compared to cycler) were positively associated with greater PPL on 24-h collections. Neither cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes nor the comorbidity Charlson Index was significantly associated with PPL. There was a consistent univariable relationship with D/P creatinine, whichever sampling method was used. Only 24-h measurements of PPL correlated with body composition variables. In multiple linear regression analysis, D/P creatinine association with PPL stands out. On the other hand, 24-h determinations (in grams or clearance) were associated with overhydration. PET protein quantification was associated with peritoneal creatinine clearance.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Different methods sign different pathophysiological pathways. PET protein loss quantification should be regarded as a marker of peritoneal membrane intrinsic permeability. Measurements of a 24-h sample might be closer to patients' clinical status and prognosis, signalizing opportunities for therapy intervention.
METHODS: This study included 81 prevalent peritoneal dialysis patients. Demographics and clinical and bioelectrical impedance features were registered. PPL was measured (4-h PET and 24-h results) and peritoneal protein clearance was calculated. A linear regression model was performed.
RESULTS: Age and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (compared to cycler) were positively associated with greater PPL on 24-h collections. Neither cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes nor the comorbidity Charlson Index was significantly associated with PPL. There was a consistent univariable relationship with D/P creatinine, whichever sampling method was used. Only 24-h measurements of PPL correlated with body composition variables. In multiple linear regression analysis, D/P creatinine association with PPL stands out. On the other hand, 24-h determinations (in grams or clearance) were associated with overhydration. PET protein quantification was associated with peritoneal creatinine clearance.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Different methods sign different pathophysiological pathways. PET protein loss quantification should be regarded as a marker of peritoneal membrane intrinsic permeability. Measurements of a 24-h sample might be closer to patients' clinical status and prognosis, signalizing opportunities for therapy intervention.