Coll E, Pérez-García R, Rodríguez-Benítez P, Ortega M, Martínez Miguel P, Jofré R, López-Gómez J M
Fundacio Puigvert de Barcelona, Espana.
Nefrologia. 2007;27(6):742-8.
the purpose of this study was to evaluate blood acetate levels and its correlation with clinical and analytical changes in hemodialysis patients treated with standard bicarbonate dialysate compared to treatment with acetate-free bicarbonate dialysate.
fourteen patients on hemodialysis (11 male) with mean age of 61 15 years, were treated with conventional bicarbonate dialysate for 1 month and then switched to acetate-free bicarbonate dialysate for another month. Blood samples were drawn at the third session of first and fourth week of each type of dialysis.
Pre-dialysis blood acetate levels were similar in both groups, whereas post-dialysis blood acetate levels were higher in patients treated with conventional bicarbonate dialysate (0.48+/- 0.64 vs. 0.18+/-0.23 mmol/L, p=0.024). Moreover, both periods had similar percentage of patients with pre-dialysis blood acetate levels in the pathologic range, whereas this percentage was higher in post-dialysis samples from patients treated with conventional bicarbonate dialysate respect to acetate-free dialysate (67% vs. 21%, p=0.001). Serum levels of interleukin-6 were statistically higher in the period with conventional bicarbonate dialysate (31.7+/- 24.7 vs. 18.7+/- 10.3 pg/ml, p=0.014), even though other inflammatory markers such as LBP, TNF- and CRP failed to increase in the same period. We didn't found significant differences in the other parameters studied except for the changes in serum concentrations of sodium, chloride and bicarbonate.
Acetate-free bicarbonate dialysate does not expose patients to a big amount of acetate and allows that the majority of patients finished hemodialysis with blood acetate levels in the physiologic ranges. Acetate-free dialysate was safe and well tolerated by our hemodialysis patients, although clinical advantages derived from its use should be evaluated in long-term prospective studies.
本研究的目的是评估血液中乙酸盐水平,以及与使用标准碳酸氢盐透析液治疗的血液透析患者相比,使用无乙酸盐碳酸氢盐透析液治疗时血液中乙酸盐水平与临床及分析指标变化的相关性。
14例接受血液透析的患者(11例男性),平均年龄61±15岁,先用传统碳酸氢盐透析液治疗1个月,然后改用无乙酸盐碳酸氢盐透析液再治疗1个月。在每种透析类型的第1周和第4周的第3次透析时采集血样。
两组透析前血液中乙酸盐水平相似,而使用传统碳酸氢盐透析液治疗的患者透析后血液中乙酸盐水平更高(0.48±0.64 vs. 0.18±0.23 mmol/L,p = 0.024)。此外,两个时期透析前血液中乙酸盐水平处于病理范围的患者百分比相似,而使用传统碳酸氢盐透析液治疗的患者透析后样本中该百分比高于使用无乙酸盐透析液治疗的患者(67% vs. 21%,p = 0.001)。使用传统碳酸氢盐透析液期间血清白细胞介素-6水平在统计学上更高(31.7±24.7 vs. 18.7±10.3 pg/ml,p = 0.014),尽管同期其他炎症标志物如脂多糖结合蛋白、肿瘤坏死因子-α和C反应蛋白未升高。除血清钠、氯和碳酸氢盐浓度变化外,我们在研究的其他参数中未发现显著差异。
无乙酸盐碳酸氢盐透析液不会使患者接触大量乙酸盐,并使大多数患者在血液透析结束时血液中乙酸盐水平处于生理范围内。无乙酸盐透析液对我们的血液透析患者是安全且耐受性良好的,尽管其使用带来的临床优势应在长期前瞻性研究中进行评估。