Peritoneal dialysis international : journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis · 2020
Clinical relevance of marginal factors on ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis.
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.
Pérez-Díaz Vicente, Pérez-Escudero Alfonso, Sanz-Ballesteros Sandra, Sánchez-García Luisa, Hernández-García Esther, Oviedo-Gómez Victoria, Sobrino-Pérez Alicia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration (UF) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) is mainly driven by the osmotic gradient and peritoneal permeability, but other factors-such as intraperitoneal pressure (IPP)-also have an influence.
METHODS: To assess the clinical relevance of these marginal factors, we studied 41 unselected PD patients undergoing two consecutive 2 h, 2.27% glucose exchanges, first with 2.5 L and then with 1.5 L.
RESULTS: IPP, higher in the 2.5 L exchange, had a wide interpatient range, was higher in obese and polycystic patients and their increase with infusion volume was higher for women regardless of body size. UF with 2.5 L correlated inversely with IPP and was higher for patients with polycystosis or hernias, while for 1.5 L we found no significant correlations. The effluent had higher glucose and osmolarity in the 2.5 L exchange than in the 1.5 L one, similar for both sexes. In spite of this stronger osmotic gradient, only 21 patients had more UF in the 2.5 L exchange, with differences up to 240 mL. The other 20 patients had more UF in the 1.5 L exchange, with stronger differences (up to 800 mL, and more than 240 mL for 9 patients). The second group, with similar effluent osmolarity and peritoneal equilibration test (PET) parameters than the first, has higher IPP and preponderance of men. The sex influence is so intense that men decreased average UF with 2.5 L with respect to 1.5 L, while women increased it.
CONCLUSIONS: With 2.27% glucose, sex and IPP-modulated by obesity, polycystosis, hernias, and intraperitoneal volume-significantly affect UF in clinical settings and might be useful for its management.
METHODS: To assess the clinical relevance of these marginal factors, we studied 41 unselected PD patients undergoing two consecutive 2 h, 2.27% glucose exchanges, first with 2.5 L and then with 1.5 L.
RESULTS: IPP, higher in the 2.5 L exchange, had a wide interpatient range, was higher in obese and polycystic patients and their increase with infusion volume was higher for women regardless of body size. UF with 2.5 L correlated inversely with IPP and was higher for patients with polycystosis or hernias, while for 1.5 L we found no significant correlations. The effluent had higher glucose and osmolarity in the 2.5 L exchange than in the 1.5 L one, similar for both sexes. In spite of this stronger osmotic gradient, only 21 patients had more UF in the 2.5 L exchange, with differences up to 240 mL. The other 20 patients had more UF in the 1.5 L exchange, with stronger differences (up to 800 mL, and more than 240 mL for 9 patients). The second group, with similar effluent osmolarity and peritoneal equilibration test (PET) parameters than the first, has higher IPP and preponderance of men. The sex influence is so intense that men decreased average UF with 2.5 L with respect to 1.5 L, while women increased it.
CONCLUSIONS: With 2.27% glucose, sex and IPP-modulated by obesity, polycystosis, hernias, and intraperitoneal volume-significantly affect UF in clinical settings and might be useful for its management.