ABSTRACT
Los pacientes que reciben dosis sub-óptima de hemodiálisis tienen mayor morbimortalidad. El objetivo del trabajo fue identificar los factores predisponentes y las principales causas de diálisis inadecuada y diseñar un algoritmo para aplicar en estos casos. Se realizó un estudio de corte transversal. Se incluyeron 90 pacientes en hemodiálisis crónica, en el Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, en septiembre 2015. Veintidós recibieron una dosis sub-óptima de hemodiálisis. Aquellos con un volumen de distribución de urea (V) mayor a 40 l (72 kg de peso corporal aproximadamente), tienen 11 veces mayores posibilidades (OR = 11.6; IC95% = 3.2-51.7, p < 0.0001) de recibir una dosis inadecuada de hemodiálisis que los que tienen un V menor a esa cifra; y los hombres 3 veces más probabilidad que las mujeres (OR = 3.5; IC95% 1.0-15.8; p = 0.0292). El V mayor a 40 l fue el único factor independiente predictor de sub-diálisis en el análisis multivariado (OR = 10.3; IC95% 2.8-37; p = 0.0004). La principal causa de diálisis sub-óptima fue recibir un flujo sanguíneo (Qb) menor al prescripto (336.4 ± 45.8 vs. 402.3 ± 28.8 ml/min, respectivamente, p < 0.0001) (n = 18). Otras causas fueron: menor duración de la sesión (n = 2), recirculación del acceso vascular (n = 1) y error en las muestras (n = 1). En conclusión, el único factor independiente predisponente de sub-diálisis fue el V mayor a 40 l. La principal causa de diálisis inadecuada fue recibir un Qb menor al prescripto. A partir de estos hallazgos, se desarrolla un algoritmo para aplicar en estos casos.
Patients receiving sub-optimal dose of hemodialysis have increased morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to identify predisposing factors and causes of inadequate dialysis, and to design a practical algorithm for the management of these patients. A cross-sectional study was conducted. Ninety patients in chronic hemodialysis at Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba were included, during September 2015. Twenty two received sub-optimal dose of hemodialysis. Those with urea distribution volume (V) greater than 40 l (72 kg body weight approximately) are 11 times more likely (OR = 11.6; CI 95% = 3.2 to 51.7, p < 0.0001) to receive an inadequate dose of hemodialysis, than those with a smaller V. This situation is more frequent in men (OR = 3.5; 95% CI 1.01-15.8; p = 0.0292). V greater than 40 l was the only independent predictor of sub-dialysis in the multivariate analysis (OR = 10.3; 95% CI 2.8-37; p < 0.0004). The main cause of suboptimal dialysis was receiving a lower blood flow (Qb) than the prescribed (336.4 ± 45.8 ml/min vs. 402.3 ± 28.8 ml/min respectively, p < 0.0001) (n = 18). Other causes were identified: shorter duration of the session (n = 2), vascular access recirculation (n = 1), and error in the samples (n = 1). In conclusion, the only independent predisposing factor found in this study for sub-optimal dialysis is V greater than 40 l. The main cause was receiving a slower Qb than prescribed. From these findings, an algorithm for the management of these patients was developed.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Renal Dialysis/standards , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Algorithms , Cross-Sectional Studies , Risk Factors , Renal Dialysis/methodsABSTRACT
Introdução: A melhor forma de quantificar a dose de diálise em pacientes com insuficiência renal aguda (IRA) ainda não está estabelecida. O b j e t i v o s :Avaliar a dose de diálise recebida pela maneira tradicional (PRU e Kt/V) e através da quantificação direta do dialisato em pacientes com IRA. M é t o d o s :A dose de diálise foi quantificada pelo percentual de redução de uréia (PRU), Kt/V (spKt/V e eKt/V) e massa extraída de uréia no dialisato (coleta parcialpor dispositivo automatizado) em pacientes com IRA submetidos à hemodiálise prolongada em unidade de terapia intensiva (UTI). Pacientes cominsuficiência renal crônica (IRC) em programa de diálise serviram como grupo controle. Resultados: Foram realizadas 11 sessões de hemodiáliseprolongada em 8 pacientes com IRA e 8 sessões de hemodiálise convencional em 5 pacientes com IRC. O PRU foi maior nos pacientes com IRC (67%;62-74% v s 54%; 37-57%; P<0,01), assim como o spKt/V (1,31;1,15-1,62 vs 0,90;0,55-1,01; P<0,01) e o eKt/V (1,15; 1,03-1,44 vs 0,69;0,47-0,92; P<0,01).Não houve diferença com relação à massa extraída de uréia no dialisato entre as sessões de hemodiálise convencional (32,6 g; 24,4-56,1) e prolongada(31,8 g; 18,2-88,8). Conclusões: Apesar da maior dose de diálise recebida nos pacientes com IRC, quando avaliada pelo PRU e Kt/V, não houvediferença na massa extraída de uréia no dialisato. Possivelmente, os valores de normalidade definidos pelo método clássico de cinética de uréia parapacientes com IRC não se aplicam a pacientes com IRA e a aferição da dose de diálise pelo dialisato pode ser uma alternativa viável nestes pacientes.
Introduction: The best way for dialysis quantification in patients with acute renal failure (ARF) is not defined. Objectives: Evaluate the delivered dialysisdose by the traditional methods (URR and Kt/V) and by the direct dialysate quantification in patients with acute renal failure. Methods: The dialysis dosewas measured by urea reduction rate (URR), Kt/V (spKt/V, eKt/V) and urea extracted mass in the dialysate (partial dialysate collection by automatic device)in acute renal failure (ARF) patients submitted to extended dialysis in intensive care unit (ICU). Chronic renal failure (CRF) patients were the control group.Results: Eleven extended hemodialysis sessions in eight patients with ARF and eight conventional hemodialysis sessions in five CRF patients wereevaluated. The URR was higher in CRF patients (67%; 62-74% vs 54%; 37-57%; P<0.01) as the spKt/V (1.31;1.15-1.62 vs 0.90;0.55-1.01; P<0.01) andeKt/V (1.15; 1.03-1.44 vs 0.69;0.47-0.92; P<0.01). There was no difference regarding the urea extracted mass in the dialysate in the conventional (32.6 g;24.4-56.1) and extended hemodialysis (31.8 g; 18.2-88.8). Conclusions: In spite of CRF patients have received a higher dialysis dose when evaluated byURR and Kt/V, there was no difference in the urea extracted mass in the dialysate. The classical urea kinetic model may be not applicable for ARF patientsand the evaluation of the dialysate can be an alternative for measurement of dialysis dose in these patients.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Renal Dialysis , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Dialysis Solutions/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that the outcomes of the patients with acute renal failure (ARF) may related to delivered dose of dialysis. In such context, a number of investigators have reported about delivered dose of dialysis and its contribution to outcomes of ARF, using Kt/V. The purpose of the study was to evaluate actual delivered dose of dialysis in intermittent hemodialysis (HD) in critically ill ARF patients, clinical factors contributing delivery of dialysis dose, and relationship of delivered dialysis dose and survival. METHODS: Delivered and prescribed dose of dialysis, presented as Kt/V, were measured in ARF patients intermittent HD in intensive care unit of Inha University Hospital from January 1999, until December 1999, using single pool urea kinetic model. RESULTS: All subjects received intermittent HD of 6.4+/-4.8 times with mean of 225.6+/-40.4 min per session. Overall survival was 55.5%. Prescribed Kt/V in all subjects was 1.24+/-0.39, but actual delivered Kt/ V was 1.08+/-0.17. A mean delivered/prescribed Kt/V ratio was 87.1+/-43%. Duration of HD session (R= -0.547, p=0.019), Cleveland Clinic Foundation Severity Score (R=-0.486, p=0.041), and frequency of hypotensive episodes (R=-0.419, p=0.043) were significantly correlated with delivered/prescribed Kt/V ratio. Delivered dose was under 1.2 in 66.7% of the subjects. Survival rate of these patients was 50.0%, which was lower as compared to 66.6% of the patients with delivered dose over 1.2. Patients with low delivered dose (Kt/V<1.2) showed significantly low prescribed dose and short HD time (p<0.05). Delivered Kt/V was correlated with BUN at initiation of dialysis, HD duration, and prescribed Kt/V (p<0.05). Non-survivors showed significantly low initial serum creatinine, low CCF severity score, high frequency of hypotensive episodes, and less use of heparin (p< 0.05). Prescribed Kt/V was not different between survivors and non-survivor (1.22+/-0.30 vs 1.31+/-0.45), but delivered Kt/V (1.17+/-0.17 vs. 1.04+/-0.17; p<0.05) and delivered/prscribed Kt/V (95.9+/-22.6% vs. 73.9+/-15.6%; p<0.05) were significantly higher in survivors than in non-survivors. CONCLUSION: In ARF patients, the delivery of dialysis was significantly lower than as was expected. Delivered/prescribed Kt/V was about 87% and more than half of the patients received intermittent HD of Kt/V less than 1.2. Better survival was associated with higher delivered dose of dialysis. We need further prospective studies about the causal relationship between delivered dose of dialysis and outcomes in ARF patients.