Pannu Neesh, Jhangri Gian S, Tonelli Marcello
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
ASAIO J. 2006 Mar-Apr;52(2):157-62. doi: 10.1097/01.mat.0000202081.13974.39.
Long-term dialysis is often delivered through tunneled central venous catheters (CVC) despite their associated morbidity and mortality rates. Because poor solute clearance might contribute to this risk, we examined the relation between blood pump speed (QB), access recirculation (AR), and dialysis delivery in patients with CVC. We conducted a prospective study on 102 patients receiving long-term hemodialysis with CVC. QB was systematically varied, and AR was measured by saline dilution with the blood supply lines in both the straight and the reversed positions during each of two dialysis sessions. During a third session, we measured ionic dialysance (EID) in patients with AR>0% and those in whom dialysis was usually delivered with catheters in the reversed position.Approximately one third (34.3%) of patients were usually run in the reversed position. Clinically significant AR (>10%) was infrequent (3%) in the straight position but common in the reversed position (86%). QB and EID were linearly correlated for both the straight and reversed positions. Approximately half (48.6%) of patients who were generally treated with their lines reversed were able to receive dialysis with the lines in the straight position within acceptable pressure limits when blood lines were switched part way through the run. In these patients, solute clearance was equivalent (EID straight 204 ml/min vs. reversed 196 ml/min, p=0.58) with lines in the straight configuration despite lower achieved QB (straight 354 ml/min vs. reversed 404 ml/min, p=0.04). Maximization of prescribed QB in CVC increased AR when blood line position was reversed but improved small solute clearance regardless of line position. This suggests that QB in CVC should be set as high as circuit pressure limits will allow, regardless of the potential for AR, and that reversal of line position confers no benefit with respect to solute clearance.
尽管长期透析导管(CVC)存在相关的发病率和死亡率,但长期透析通常仍通过隧道式中心静脉导管进行。由于溶质清除不佳可能会导致这种风险,我们研究了CVC患者的血泵速度(QB)、通路再循环(AR)与透析效果之间的关系。我们对102例接受CVC长期血液透析的患者进行了一项前瞻性研究。系统地改变QB,并在两次透析过程中的每一次中,通过在直线和反向位置的供血管路中注入生理盐水来测量AR。在第三次透析过程中,我们测量了AR>0%的患者以及通常在导管反向位置进行透析的患者的离子透析率(EID)。约三分之一(34.3%)的患者通常采用反向位置进行透析。临床上显著的AR(>10%)在直线位置时很少见(3%),但在反向位置时很常见(86%)。QB与EID在直线和反向位置均呈线性相关。约一半(48.6%)通常采用管路反向进行治疗的患者,在透析过程中将管路中途切换为直线位置时,能够在可接受的压力范围内接受透析。在这些患者中,尽管达到的QB较低(直线位置354 ml/min vs. 反向位置404 ml/min,p=0.04),但直线配置管路时的溶质清除效果相当(直线位置EID为204 ml/min vs. 反向位置196 ml/min,p=0.58)。当血路位置反向时,CVC中规定QB的最大化会增加AR,但无论管路位置如何,都能改善小分子溶质的清除。这表明,无论AR的可能性如何,CVC中的QB应设置得尽可能高,直至达到回路压力极限,并且管路位置的反转在溶质清除方面并无益处。