Determination of Dialysis Dose: A Clinical Comparison of Methods
Rattachement africain : de, gr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend regular measurements of the delivered hemodialysis dose Kt/V. Nowadays, automatic non-invasive online measurements are available as alternatives to the conventional method with blood sampling, laboratory analysis, and calculation. METHODS: In a prospective clinical trial, three different methods determining dialysis dose were simultaneously applied: Kt/V(Dau) (conventional method with Daugirdas' formula), Kt/V(OCM) [online clearance measurement (OCM) with urea distribution volume V based on anthropometric estimate], and Kt/V(BCM) [OCM measurement with V measured by bioimpedance analysis (Body Composition Monitor)]. RESULTS: 1,076 hemodialysis patients were analyzed. The dialysis dose was measured as Kt/V(Dau) = 1.74 ± 0.45, Kt/V(OCM) = 1.47 ± 0.34, and Kt/V(BCM) = 1.65 ± 0.42. The difference between Kt/V(OCM) and Kt/V(BCM) was due to the difference between anthropometric estimated V(Watson) and measured V(BCM). Compared to Kt/V(Dau), Kt/V(OCM) was 15% lower and Kt/V(BCM) 5% lower. Kt/V(Dau) was incidentally prone to falsely high values due to operative errors, whereas in these cases OCM-based measurements Kt/V(OCM) and Kt/V(BCM) delivered realistic values. CONCLUSIONS: The automated OCM Kt/V(OCM) with anthropometric estimation of urea distribution volume was the easiest method to use, but Kt/V(BCM) with measured urea distribution volume was closer to the conventional method.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Determination of Dialysis Dose: A Clinical Comparison of Methods
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2011
- Éditeur
- S. Karger AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.