Determining the residual volume in peritoneal dialysis using low molecular weight markers.
Peritoneal dialysis
fluid overfill
mass transfer
residual volume
ultrafiltration
Journal
Peritoneal dialysis international : journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
ISSN: 1718-4304
Titre abrégé: Perit Dial Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904033
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline:
2
8
2024
pubmed:
2
8
2024
entrez:
2
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Variation in residual volume between peritoneal dialysis dwells creates uncertainty in ultrafiltration determination, dialysis efficiency, and poses a risk of overfill if the residual volume is large. Measuring the dilution of a marker molecule during fluid fill offers a convenient approach, however, estimation accuracy depends on the choice of dilution marker. We here evaluate the feasibility of creatinine and urea as dilution markers compared to albumin-based residual volumes and three-pore model estimations. This clinical, retrospective analysis comprises 56 residual volume estimations from 20 individuals, based on the dilution of pre-fill dialysate creatinine, urea and albumin concentrations during the dialysis fluid fill phase. Outcomes were compared individually. Bias induced by ultrafiltration, marker molecule mass-transfer and influence of fluid glucose contents was quantified using the three-pore model. Linear regression established conversion factors enabling conversion between the various marker molecules. Creatinine-based calculations overestimated residual volumes by 115 mL (IQR 89-149) in 1.5% dwells and 252 mL (IQR 179-313) in 4.25% glucose dwells. In hypertonic dwells, ultrafiltration was 52 mL (IQR 38-66), while intraperitoneal creatinine mass increased by 67% during fluid fill, being the leading cause of overestimation. Albumin-based volumes conformed strongly with three-pore model estimates. Correction factors effectively enabled marker molecule interchangeability. Mass-transfer of low molecular weight marker molecules is associated with residual volume overestimation. However, by applying correction factors, creatinine and urea dilution can still provide reasonable estimates, particularly when the purpose is to exclude the presence of a very large residual volume.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Variation in residual volume between peritoneal dialysis dwells creates uncertainty in ultrafiltration determination, dialysis efficiency, and poses a risk of overfill if the residual volume is large. Measuring the dilution of a marker molecule during fluid fill offers a convenient approach, however, estimation accuracy depends on the choice of dilution marker. We here evaluate the feasibility of creatinine and urea as dilution markers compared to albumin-based residual volumes and three-pore model estimations.
METHOD
METHODS
This clinical, retrospective analysis comprises 56 residual volume estimations from 20 individuals, based on the dilution of pre-fill dialysate creatinine, urea and albumin concentrations during the dialysis fluid fill phase. Outcomes were compared individually. Bias induced by ultrafiltration, marker molecule mass-transfer and influence of fluid glucose contents was quantified using the three-pore model. Linear regression established conversion factors enabling conversion between the various marker molecules.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Creatinine-based calculations overestimated residual volumes by 115 mL (IQR 89-149) in 1.5% dwells and 252 mL (IQR 179-313) in 4.25% glucose dwells. In hypertonic dwells, ultrafiltration was 52 mL (IQR 38-66), while intraperitoneal creatinine mass increased by 67% during fluid fill, being the leading cause of overestimation. Albumin-based volumes conformed strongly with three-pore model estimates. Correction factors effectively enabled marker molecule interchangeability.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Mass-transfer of low molecular weight marker molecules is associated with residual volume overestimation. However, by applying correction factors, creatinine and urea dilution can still provide reasonable estimates, particularly when the purpose is to exclude the presence of a very large residual volume.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39091083
doi: 10.1177/08968608241260024
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8968608241260024Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: G. Martus has a collaboration with Triomed AB (Lund, Sweden) unrelated to the present work. K. Bergling has pursued two master thesis projects with Gambro Lundia AB (unrelated to this work). K. Bergling reports research funding from Baxter Healthcare. K. Bergling and CM. Öberg are inventors of pending patents filed by Gambro Lundia AB (Baxter; unrelated to this work). CM. Öberg reports research grants (unrelated to this work) from Baxter Healthcare and Fresenius Medical Care and speaker’s honoraria from Baxter Healthcare. CM. Öberg reports a consultancy agreement with Baxter Healthcare and an advisory or leadership role with the Peritoneal Dialysis International editorial board. E. Lindholm reports no disclosures.