BACKGROUND: Quantification of hemodialysis became more accurate and easier after the advent of ionic dialysance and the use of methods for estimating urea distribution volume (V). The aim of this study was to compare different methods of hemodialysis dose assessment: Kt/VDau (Daugirdas 2nd generation), Kt/VOCM (Kt by OCM (Online Clearance Monitor) and V by Watson), and Kt/VBCM (Kt by OCM and V by bio-impedance); and to assess the dialysis adequacy, defined by a Kt/V>1.4. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. METHODS: 35 hemodialysis sessions were evaluated in 35 chronic hemodialysis patients. During each session, we measured simultaneously, Kt/VOCM, Kt/VBCM and calculated Kt/VDau by performing blood samples before and after each session. RESULTS: 35 patients, gender (M/F: 19/16), mean age of 50.49 years, were evaluated. We noted a difference between the three methods of evaluating Kt/V index: Kt/VDau, Kt/VOCM and Kt/VBCM (1.82 ± 0.29; 1.45 ± 0.23; 1.8 ± 0.33, p<0.001). Comparison of Kt/VOCM with Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM leads to a significant systematic underestimate of Kt/V by 22% and 20.5% respectively. Better agreement between Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM was observed. The adequate hemodialysis was achieved, according to three methods: Kt/VDau, Kt/VOCM and Kt/VBCM respectively in 100%, 57,1% and 88.6% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The Kt/V index is different depending on the method used for its evaluation. The three methods can be used for quantification of hemodialysis with a better agreement between Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM. In this study, Kt/VOCM results underestimate hemodialysis efficiency. This difference has to be considered when applying quantification of hemodialysis to clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Quantification of hemodialysis became more accurate and easier after the advent of ionic dialysance and the use of methods for estimating urea distribution volume (V). The aim of this study was to compare different methods of hemodialysis dose assessment: Kt/VDau (Daugirdas 2nd generation), Kt/VOCM (Kt by OCM (Online Clearance Monitor) and V by Watson), and Kt/VBCM (Kt by OCM and V by bio-impedance); and to assess the dialysis adequacy, defined by a Kt/V>1.4. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. METHODS: 35 hemodialysis sessions were evaluated in 35 chronic hemodialysis patients. During each session, we measured simultaneously, Kt/VOCM, Kt/VBCM and calculated Kt/VDau by performing blood samples before and after each session. RESULTS: 35 patients, gender (M/F: 19/16), mean age of 50.49 years, were evaluated. We noted a difference between the three methods of evaluating Kt/V index: Kt/VDau, Kt/VOCM and Kt/VBCM (1.82 ± 0.29; 1.45 ± 0.23; 1.8 ± 0.33, p<0.001). Comparison of Kt/VOCM with Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM leads to a significant systematic underestimate of Kt/V by 22% and 20.5% respectively. Better agreement between Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM was observed. The adequate hemodialysis was achieved, according to three methods: Kt/VDau, Kt/VOCM and Kt/VBCM respectively in 100%, 57,1% and 88.6% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The Kt/V index is different depending on the method used for its evaluation. The three methods can be used for quantification of hemodialysis with a better agreement between Kt/VDau and Kt/VBCM. In this study, Kt/VOCM results underestimate hemodialysis efficiency. This difference has to be considered when applying quantification of hemodialysis to clinical practice.
Authors: Sandra Y Hernandez-Agudelo; Carlos G Musso; Henry J González-Torres; Christian Castro-Hernández; Lina P Maya-Altamiranda; María V Quintero-Cruz; Claudio Corradino; Sergio A Terrasa; Gustavo J Aroca-Martínez; Andrés Cadena-Bonfanti Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Francesco Gaetano Casino; Elena Mancini; Giovanni Santarsia; Salvatore Domenico Mostacci; Filomena D'Elia; Maria Di Carlo; Francesco Iannuzzella; Luigi Rossi; Luigi Vernaglione; Daniela Grimaldi; Renato Rapanà; Carlo Basile Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.902