Francesco Gaetano Casino1,2, Carlo Basile1. 1. Division of Nephrology, Clinical Research Branch, Miulli General Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy. 2. Dialysis Centre SM2, Potenza, Italy.
Abstract
Background: There is a recently heightened interest in incremental haemodialysis (IHD), the main advantage of which could likely be a better preservation of the residual kidney function of the patients. The implementation of IHD, however, is hindered by many factors, among them, the mathematical complexity of its prescription. The aim of our study was to design a user-friendly tool for IHD prescription, consisting of only a few rows of a common spreadsheet. Methods: The keystone of our spreadsheet was the following fundamental concept: the dialysis dose to be prescribed in IHD depends only on the normalized urea clearance provided by the native kidneys (KRUn) of the patient for each frequency of treatment, according to the variable target model recently proposed by Casino and Basile (The variable target model: a paradigm shift in the incremental haemodialysis prescription. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017. 32: 182-190). The first step was to put in sequence a series of equations in order to calculate, firstly, KRUn and, then, the key parameters to be prescribed for an adequate IHD; the second step was to compare KRUn values obtained with our spreadsheet with KRUn values obtainable with the gold standard Solute-solver (Daugirdas JT et al., Solute-solver: a web-based tool for modeling urea kinetics for a broad range of hemodialysis schedules in multiple patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2009. 54: 798-809) in a sample of 40 incident haemodialysis patients. Results: Our spreadsheet provided excellent results. The differences with Solute-solver were clinically negligible. This was confirmed by the Bland-Altman plot built to analyse the agreement between KRUn values obtained with the two methods: the difference was 0.07 ± 0.05 mL/min/35 L. Conclusions: Our spreadsheet is a user-friendly tool able to provide clinically acceptable results in IHD prescription. Two immediate consequences could derive: (i) a larger dissemination of IHD might occur; and (ii) our spreadsheet could represent a useful tool for an ineludibly needed full-fledged clinical trial, comparing IHD with standard thrice-weekly HD.
Background: There is a recently heightened interest in incremental haemodialysis (IHD), the main advantage of which could likely be a better preservation of the residual kidney function of the patients. The implementation of IHD, however, is hindered by many factors, among them, the mathematical complexity of its prescription. The aim of our study was to design a user-friendly tool for IHD prescription, consisting of only a few rows of a common spreadsheet. Methods: The keystone of our spreadsheet was the following fundamental concept: the dialysis dose to be prescribed in IHD depends only on the normalized urea clearance provided by the native kidneys (KRUn) of the patient for each frequency of treatment, according to the variable target model recently proposed by Casino and Basile (The variable target model: a paradigm shift in the incremental haemodialysis prescription. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017. 32: 182-190). The first step was to put in sequence a series of equations in order to calculate, firstly, KRUn and, then, the key parameters to be prescribed for an adequate IHD; the second step was to compare KRUn values obtained with our spreadsheet with KRUn values obtainable with the gold standard Solute-solver (Daugirdas JT et al., Solute-solver: a web-based tool for modeling urea kinetics for a broad range of hemodialysis schedules in multiple patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2009. 54: 798-809) in a sample of 40 incident haemodialysis patients. Results: Our spreadsheet provided excellent results. The differences with Solute-solver were clinically negligible. This was confirmed by the Bland-Altman plot built to analyse the agreement between KRUn values obtained with the two methods: the difference was 0.07 ± 0.05 mL/min/35 L. Conclusions: Our spreadsheet is a user-friendly tool able to provide clinically acceptable results in IHD prescription. Two immediate consequences could derive: (i) a larger dissemination of IHD might occur; and (ii) our spreadsheet could represent a useful tool for an ineludibly needed full-fledged clinical trial, comparing IHD with standard thrice-weekly HD.
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