INTRODUCTION: Adequate delivered dose of solute removal (as assessed by urea reduction and calculation of Kt/V) is an important determinant of clinical outcome in chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. The requirement for multiple blood sampling and efforts taken to minimize the effects of rebound on post-treatment samples ensure Kt/V is measured only intermittently. On-line conductivity monitoring (using sodium flux as a surrogate for urea) allows the repeated non-invasive measurement of Kt/V on each HD treatment. We have studied the accuracy of this method of measuring Kt/V, and the variability of treatment dose delivered to individual patients. METHODS: We prospectively studied 26 established chronic HD patients over 4 weeks (316 treatments). Patients were dialysed using Hospal Integra dialysis monitors, equipped with Diascan modules to measure Kt/V. Data were downloaded automatically to a central computer server. Urea reduction was measured (once a week) by a two-pool calculation using 30 min post-treatment sampling. RESULTS: Treatment time, Q(B) and modality were fully delivered in all treatments analysed (97% of total). Kt/V measured by ionic dialysance (Kt/V(ID)) correlated highly with that derived from measurement of urea reduction (R(2)=0.92, P<0.0001). Kt/V(ID) underestimated urea-based Kt/V by a mean of only 1.5% (95% CI 0.18-2.9%). Kt/V(ID) varied greatly within individual patients with a mean CV of 0.13+/-0.10 (95% CI 0.05-0.3). If a Kt/V(ID) of 1.0 is considered 'adequate', 55% of the patients had variations that would have potentially altered their status as being adequately or inadequately dialysed, as the range of Kt/V readings cross that point during the study period. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Kt/V(ID) seems to be an accurate and readily obtained measure of adequacy. Substantial variation in Kt/V implies repeated measures (ideally for all treatments) are necessary to gain a true picture of the mean treatment dose being delivered to patients.
INTRODUCTION: Adequate delivered dose of solute removal (as assessed by urea reduction and calculation of Kt/V) is an important determinant of clinical outcome in chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. The requirement for multiple blood sampling and efforts taken to minimize the effects of rebound on post-treatment samples ensure Kt/V is measured only intermittently. On-line conductivity monitoring (using sodium flux as a surrogate for urea) allows the repeated non-invasive measurement of Kt/V on each HD treatment. We have studied the accuracy of this method of measuring Kt/V, and the variability of treatment dose delivered to individual patients. METHODS: We prospectively studied 26 established chronic HDpatients over 4 weeks (316 treatments). Patients were dialysed using Hospal Integra dialysis monitors, equipped with Diascan modules to measure Kt/V. Data were downloaded automatically to a central computer server. Urea reduction was measured (once a week) by a two-pool calculation using 30 min post-treatment sampling. RESULTS: Treatment time, Q(B) and modality were fully delivered in all treatments analysed (97% of total). Kt/V measured by ionic dialysance (Kt/V(ID)) correlated highly with that derived from measurement of urea reduction (R(2)=0.92, P<0.0001). Kt/V(ID) underestimated urea-based Kt/V by a mean of only 1.5% (95% CI 0.18-2.9%). Kt/V(ID) varied greatly within individual patients with a mean CV of 0.13+/-0.10 (95% CI 0.05-0.3). If a Kt/V(ID) of 1.0 is considered 'adequate', 55% of the patients had variations that would have potentially altered their status as being adequately or inadequately dialysed, as the range of Kt/V readings cross that point during the study period. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Kt/V(ID) seems to be an accurate and readily obtained measure of adequacy. Substantial variation in Kt/V implies repeated measures (ideally for all treatments) are necessary to gain a true picture of the mean treatment dose being delivered to patients.
Authors: Sami Safadi; Robert C Albright; John J Dillon; Amy W Williams; Fares Alahdab; Julie K Brown; Amanda L Severson; Walter K Kremers; Mary Ann Ryan; Marie C Hogan Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2017-03-16
Authors: A Alayoud; D Montassir; A Hamzi; Y Zajjari; A Bahadi; D El Kabbaj; O Maoujoud; T Aatif; K Hassani; M Benyahia; Z Oualim Journal: Indian J Nephrol Date: 2012-09
Authors: Wihib Gebregeorgis; Zeenat Yousuf Bhat; Nishigandha Pradhan; Stephen D Migdal; Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal; Reddy Singasani; Tehmina Mushtaq; Ronald Thomas; Yahya M Osman Malik Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2018-01-31