Suppr超能文献

KT/V:分母困境。

KT/V: the denominator dilemma.

作者信息

Lindholm Bengt, Waniewski Jacek, Weryński Andrzej

机构信息

Divisions of Baxter Novum and Renal Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2003 Oct;15(88):311-5.

Abstract

The efficacy of solute removal by renal replacement therapy can be assessed by the commonly used index of KT/V. However, KT/V has a different meaning in hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), and KT/V in HD and PD can therefore not be compared. For example, in HD one uses an instantaneous clearance K = (solute removal rate)/CB, where CB is solute concentration in blood. Thus, K is the clearance of the purification device (hemodialyzer) and in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) it is the diffusive mass transport parameter (KBD, MTAC) but this is not used in clinical practice. Instead, in CAPD one uses a treatment clearance KT = (average rate of solute removal per treatment)/CBO, where CBO is CB at the beginning of the treatment. Whereas K is constant, KT decreases during the CAPD dwell. The current practice of using KTT/V for CAPD but KT/V for HD leads to confusion. Furthermore, T is different in CAPD (about 150 hours per week) and HD (about 12 hours per week). Finally, V, the distribution volume of the solute (usually urea), is calculated in different ways in HD and PD. V is strongly related to nutritional status and as such it is a strong predictor of survival. KT in HD, and KTT in CAPD, represents the dialysis dose and as such also a predictor of survival. This may at least in part explain why the recent Ademex study in PD patients and the Hemo study in HD patients could not demonstrate any strong impact of different levels of KT/V (KTT/V) on clinical outcome. In this review, we discuss the shortcomings of the "KT/V" concept, in particular its limited value for comparisons between dialysis efficiency in PD and HD, as well as the dilemma of using V as the denominator considering that V in itself may represent a strong predictor of outcome.

摘要

肾脏替代治疗溶质清除的疗效可通过常用指标KT/V进行评估。然而,KT/V在血液透析(HD)和腹膜透析(PD)中有不同含义,因此HD和PD中的KT/V无法进行比较。例如,在HD中,使用瞬时清除率K =(溶质清除率)/CB,其中CB是血液中的溶质浓度。因此,K是净化装置(血液透析器)的清除率,而在持续性非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)中,它是扩散质量传输参数(KBD,MTAC),但在临床实践中并不使用。相反,在CAPD中,使用治疗清除率KT =(每次治疗的溶质平均清除率)/CBO,其中CBO是治疗开始时的CB。虽然K是恒定的,但在CAPD驻留期间KT会降低。目前在CAPD中使用KTT/V而在HD中使用KT/V的做法会导致混淆。此外,CAPD中的T(每周约150小时)和HD中的T(每周约12小时)不同。最后,溶质(通常是尿素)的分布容积V在HD和PD中的计算方式不同。V与营养状况密切相关,因此是生存的有力预测指标。HD中的KT和CAPD中的KTT代表透析剂量,因此也是生存的预测指标。这可能至少部分解释了为什么最近针对PD患者的Ademex研究和针对HD患者的Hemo研究未能证明不同水平的KT/V(KTT/V)对临床结局有任何强烈影响。在本综述中,我们讨论了“KT/V”概念的缺点,特别是其在比较PD和HD透析效率方面的有限价值,以及将V用作分母的困境,因为V本身可能是结局的有力预测指标。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验