Background The most widely used peritoneal function test, the peritoneal equilibration test (PET), is performed with a 2.27% glucose solution. Recently, the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis committee on ultrafiltration failure (UFF) advised performing the test with 3.86% glucose solution because it is more sensitive for detecting clinically significant UFF. Because no reference values for this test were available, we analyzed the results of standard peritoneal permeability analyses (SPAs) using 3.86% glucose. Methods The tests were performed in our center on 154 clinically stable peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients that were free of peritonitis for at least 4 weeks. For the assessment of reference values, we used two approaches. In approach A, patients with UFF, defined as net ultrafiltration (UF)< 400 mL/4 hours, were excluded. In approach B, only patients within their first 2 years of PD treatment were included, regardless of net UF. Means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the transport parameters of the PET and SPA. Results Means of normal distribution with 95% CI in approach A were as follows: for 2.0-L exchanges, mass transfer area coefficient (MTAC) for creatinine 8.8 mL/minute (4.7 – 12.7 mL/min), dialysate/plasma ratio (D/P) creatinine 0.70 (0.52 – 0.88), glucose absorption 58% (44% – 72%), dialysate240/initial dialysate ratio of glucose (D t/D0) 0.28 (0.18 – 0.38), net UF 675 mL (375 – 975 mL), and maximal dip in D/P sodium after correction for diffusion from the circulation 0.110 (0.050 – 0.164); for 1.5-L exchanges, MTAC creatinine 7.4 mL/min (3.8 – 11.0 mL/min), D/P creatinine 0.69 (0.52 – 0.86), glucose absorption 62% (52% – 72%), D t/D0 glucose 0.25 (0.17 – 0.32), net UF 551 mL (430 – 670 mL), and maximal dip D/P sodium 0.120 (0.048 – 0.166). In approach B, most of the transport values were similar; however, values for lymphatic absorption were significantly higher [1.52 mL/min (2-L) and 1.40 mL/min (1.5-L), p < 0.01] and values for the maximum dip in D/P sodium were lower [0.101 (2-L) and 0.112 (1.5-L), p > 0.05]. This was probably the result of including patients with UFF in approach B, since these parameters can be causative factors of UFF. Conclusions A peritoneal transport function test using 3.86% glucose provides data on various aspects of transport. This study gives normal reference values that can be used for analysis of causes of UFF.
The method applied here is the first direct quantification of free water transport, calculated from a single standard peritoneal function test. It offers a quick possibility to evaluate patients suffering from ultrafiltration failure. In these patients free water transport was impaired, but the origin of this impairment is still to be determined.
The incidence, causes and complications of severe rhabdomyolysis (creatine phosphokinase (CK) > or = 5000 U/l) were studied during a 7-year study period in a large university hospital population. This condition was present in 0.074% of all admitted patients. The mortality in the study group (n = 93) was 32% and the incidence of acute renal failure (ARF) 51%. Ischaemia was the most frequent cause, and drugs, alcohol and/or coma were the second most common cause of severe rhabdomyolysis. Patients with rhabdomyolysis due to ischaemia were older, had ARF more often, and also had the highest mortality. Hyperkalaemia (potassium > or = 5.5 mmol/l) occurred in 13% of the patients, and all of them had or developed an impaired renal function. Hypocalcaemia (calcium < or = 2.00 mmol/l) was found in 41%. The incidence of ARF and electrolyte disturbances was higher in patients with CK levels exceeding 15,000 U/l. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with ARF. Plasma concentrations of potassium and calcium correlated better with the severity of renal failure than with the maximal height of plasma CK.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.