| Literature DB >> 33163718 |
Giedre Martus1, Karin Bergling1, Ole Simonsen1, Eric Goffin2,3, Johann Morelle2,3, Carl M Öberg1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The osmotic conductance to glucose (OCG) is a crucial determinant of ultrafiltration (UF) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients and can be used to monitor membrane integrity in patients on long-term PD. It has been proposed that OCG can be assessed based on drained volumes in 2 consecutive 1-hour glucose dwells, usually 1.5% and 4.25% glucose, in a so-called double mini-peritoneal equilibration test (dm-PET). However, recent data indicated that the dm-PET provides a poor estimate of OCG unless the residual volume (RV) is taken into account. We introduce an easy, robust, and accurate method to measure OCG and compare it with conventional methods.Entities:
Keywords: osmotic conductance; osmotic water transport; peritoneal dialysis; peritoneal equilibration test; ultrafiltration
Year: 2020 PMID: 33163718 PMCID: PMC7610002 DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2020.09.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Kidney Int Rep ISSN: 2468-0249
Figure 1(a) A double mini-peritoneal equilibration test (PET) consisted of 2 consecutive 60 min dwells with 1.5 % glucose followed by 4.25% glucose fluid. Calculation of OCG (OCGdmp) is based on stock glucose concentrations (G4.25 and G1.5) and drained volumes (V4.25 and V1.5). (b) Modified double mini-PET with residual volumes being assessed before, between, and after the dwells. Calculation of OCG (OCGdmpRV) is performed on the basis of actual average glucose concentrations ( and ) and actual ultrafiltration (aUF4.25 and aUF1.5). (c) A single-dwell method to determine OCG, essentially a single mini-PET with residual volume determination before and after a 60-minute 4.25% dwell. Calculation of OCG (OCGsd) is based on aUF and actual glucose concentration assuming an opposing osmotic concentration gradient (Cr) of 40 mmol/L. (d) OCGdmp versus actual 60-minute UF for the 4.25% dwell (aUF4.25). (e) OCGdmpRV versus aUF4.25. (f) OCGsd versus aUF4.25. DPI, dots per inch.
Baseline demographics
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 21 |
| No. of measurements | 30 |
| Age, years | 75 (70−78) |
| Sex, | |
| Male | 13 (62) |
| Female | 8 (38) |
| Ethnicity, | |
| White | 20 (95) |
| Asian | 1 (5) |
| PD vintage, months (minimum–maximum) | 13 (2−78) |
| PD modality, | |
| CAPD | 13 (62) |
| APD | 8 (38) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 25 (23.9–26.1) |
| Body surface area, m2 | 1.78 (1.73–1.96) |
| Primary renal disease, | |
| Glomerulonephritis | 5 (24) |
| CIN | 2 (10) |
| Polycystic kidney disease | 3 (14) |
| Diabetic nephropathy | 3 (14) |
| Hypertensive nephropathy | 7 (33) |
| Amyloidosis | 1 (5) |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | 7 (5−9) |
| Davies comorbidity index | 1 (1−3) |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 5 (24) |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 21 (100) |
| History of CHF, n (%) | 7 (33) |
| Systolic BP, mm Hg | 140 (130−145) |
| Diastolic BP, mm Hg | 83 (80−87) |
| Plasma concentrations | |
| Albumin, g/l | 33 (31−35) |
| Glucose, mmol/l | 6.8 (6.3−7.4) |
| Sodium, mmol/l | 140 (138−141) |
| Urea, mmol/l | 15 (12−18) |
APD, automated peritoneal disease; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CHF, congestive heart failure; CIN, chronic interstitial nephritis; PD, peritoneal disease.
Data are median (interquartile range) or n (%) unless otherwise specified.
Parameters of peritoneal transport
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Osmotic water transport | |
| UF 1.5% glucose, ml | 153 (33−300) |
| UF 4.25% glucose, ml | 588 (417−675) |
| Free water transport (4.25%), ml | 176 (145−213) |
| Sodium transport | |
| NaR 1.5% glucose, mmol/l UF | 122 (99−134) |
| NaR 4.25% glucose, mmol/l UF | 94 (81−102) |
| Dip Na 60 min, mmol/l | 9 (8−10) |
| Osmotic conductance to glucose | |
| OCGdmp, μL · min−1 · mm Hg−1 | 3.5 (1.5−4.2) |
| OCGdmpRV, μL · min−1 · mm Hg−1 | 4.1 (1.4−5.9) |
| OCGsd, μL · min−1 · mm Hg−1 | 4.1 (2.8−4.9) |
Dip Na 60, sodium dip at 60 minutes; NaR, sodium removal; OCG, osmotic conductance to glucose; OCGdmp, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated from the double mini-peritoneal equilibration test; OCGdmpRV, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated from the double mini-peritoneal equilibration test taking residual volumes into account; OCGsd, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the single-dwell method; OCGtpm, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the 3-pore model; UF, ultrafiltration calculated taking residual volumes before and after drain into account (see text).
Data are median (interquartile range).
Figure 2(a) Osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the 3-pore model (OCGtpm) versus creatinine mass transfer area concentration (MTACcrea) as estimated with the 3-pore model for all 28 double mini-peritoneal equilibration tests in the discovery cohort. The capability of each individual patient to obtain ultrafiltration (UF) using glucose as an osmotic agent is chiefly dependent on OCG and the small-solute diffusion capacity of the peritoneal membrane, here illustrated by MTACcrea. Low glucose conductance and fast transport status → poor UF ability (red color). High glucose conductance and slow transport status → good UF ability (blue color). (b) Glucose diffusion capacity (mL/min) vs creatinine diffusion capacity (ml/min). The ratio between their respective diffusion coefficients (Dglucose/Dcrea ≈ 8.8·10−6/1.1·10−5) is 0.80. (c) Linear regression between OCG estimated with the single- dwell equation (y-axis) and OCG calculated using the 3-pore model (x-axis). (d) The Bland-Altman plot of the difference in OCG between the single-dwell equation and the 3-pore model as a function of the average OCG of the methods.
Diagnostic accuracy of the various methods to determine osmotic conductance to glucose
| Index Methods | Reference Method (OCGtpm) | |
|---|---|---|
| dm-PET, no residual volume | OCGtpm > 2 | OCGtpm < 2 |
| OCGdmp > 2 | 16 | 4 |
| OCGdmp < 2 | 7 | 1 |
| dm-PET, including residual volumes | ||
| OCGdmpRV > 2 | 16 | 0 |
| OCGdmpRV < 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Single-dwell equation, including residual volumes | ||
| OCGsd > 2 | 23 | 0 |
| OCGsd < 2 | 0 | 5 |
dm-PET, double mini-peritoneal equilibration test; OCGdmp, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated from the double mini-peritoneal equilibration test; OCGdmpRV, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated from the double miniperitoneal equilibration test taking residual volumes into account; OCGsd, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the single-dwell method; OCGtpm, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the 3-pore model.
Correlation coefficients between parameters of osmotic water transport in a separate cohort not taking residual volumes into account
| Net UF 4 h | Dip Na 60 | FWT | OCGdmp | OCGsd | Residual volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net UF 4 h | 1.00 | |||||
| Dip Na 60 | 0.37 | 1.00 | ||||
| FWT | 0.42 | 0.85 | 1.00 | |||
| OCGdmp | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 1.00 | ||
| OCGsd | 0.44 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.76 | 1.00 | |
| Residual volume | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 1.00 |
FWT, free water transport; Dip Na 60, sodium dip at 60 minutes in mmol/l; OCGdmp, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated from the double mini-peritoneal equilibration test; peritoneal equilibration test; OCGsd, osmotic conductance to glucose calculated using the single-dwell method; UF, ultrafiltration = drained volume – instilled volume.
Measured between dwells (see text).
P < 0.01.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.001.