| Literature DB >> 21603102 |
Abstract
Dialysate calcium (Ca) concentration should be viewed as part of the integrated therapeutic regimen to control renal osteodystrophy and maintain normal mineral metabolism. The goals of this integrated approach are to keep the patient in a mild positive Ca mass balance (CaMB), to maintain normal serum Ca levels, to control plasma parathyroid hormone values to two to three times above normal levels, and to avoid soft-tissue calcifications. Thus, a correct net CaMB during hemodialysis (HD) is crucial in the treatment of renal osteodystrophy. Very few studies have been published which measured CaMBs in bicarbonate HD. This is mainly due to the technical difficulties in achieving an accurate measurement of CaMBs owing to the need for the collection of the total spent dialysate or of a proportional aliquot of it. Whereas no doubt exists about the fact that an inlet dialysate Ca concentration (CaD) of 1.75 mmol/L leads to a positive CaMB, more controversial is this issue, when dealing with a CaD of 1.50 mmol/L and, even more, when dealing with a CaD of 1.25 mmol/L. Another important issue is the appropriate CaD in long-hour slow-flow nocturnal HD. Finally, which CaMB should we study: ionized CaMB or total CaMB? This issue is largely discussed in the review.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21603102 PMCID: PMC3097019 DOI: 10.4061/2011/540592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nephrol
Figure 1Flow chart of the GENIUS single-pass batch dialysis system.
Ca mass balances in bicarbonate HD with different inlet dialysate Ca concentration (CaD).
| Authors | Hours | Number of patients | CaD (mmol/L) | Calcium mass balance (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malberti et al. [ | 4 | 20 | 1.75 | +80 ± 164 |
| Hou et al. [ | 4 | 7 | 1.75 | +876 ± 92 |
| Fabrizi et al. [ | 3 | 6 | 1.75 | +308 ± 52 |
| Al-Heijaili et al. [ | 4 | 13 | 1.75 | +584 ± 196 |
| Karohl et al. [ | 4 | 23 | 1.75 | +405 ± 413 |
| Malberti et al. [ | 4 | 20 | 1.50 | −112 ± 80 |
| Malberti et al. [ | 4 | 11 | 1.50 | −204 ± 124 |
| Al-Heijaili et al. [ | 4 | 13 | 1.50 | −80 ± 64 |
| Karohl et al. [ | 4 | 23 | 1.50 | +46 ± 400 |
| Basile et al. [ | 4 | 22 | 1.50 | +293 ± 228 |
| Basile et al. [ | 4 | 11 | 1.50 | +285 ± 137 |
| Basile et al. [ | 8 | 11 | 1.50 | +298 ± 132 |
| Al-Heijaili et al. [ | 8 | 13 | 1.50 | −171 ± 287 |
| Basile et al. [ | 4 | 22 | 1.375 | +182 ± 125 |
| Basile et al. [ | 4 | 22 | 1.25 | +75 ± 122 |
| Hou et al. [ | 4 | 7 | 1.25 | +216 ± 136 |
| Fabrizi et al. [ | 3 | 6 | 1.25 | −6 ± 36 |
| Malberti and Ravani [ | 4 | 11 | 1.25 | −324 ± 156 |
| Al-Heijaili et al. [ | 4 | 13 | 1.25 | −328 ± 108 |
| Karohl et al. [ | 4 | 23 | 1.25 | −468 ± 563 |
| Sigrist and McIntyre [ | 4 | 52 | 1.25 | −188 ± 232 |
| Karohl et al. [ | 4 | 23 | 1.00 | −578 ± 389 |
Means ± SD. Solute removal during dialysis is expressed as a negative number, whereas solute gain is expressed as a positive number.