Suppr超能文献

循环辅助腹膜透析与持续非卧床腹膜透析的容量超负荷比较。

Comparison of volume overload with cycler-assisted versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

作者信息

Davison Sara N, Jhangri Gian S, Jindal Kailash, Pannu Neesh

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009 Jun;4(6):1044-50. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00020109. Epub 2009 Apr 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cycler-assisted peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) has been associated with decreased sodium removal compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) as a result of peritoneal sodium sieving during the short dwells that are associated with CCPD. This may have adverse consequences for management of extracellular fluid volume (ECFV). This study compared ECFV in patients who received CAPD or CCPD; CCPD dwell times were maximized by limiting the number of exchanges, and the use of icodextrin for the long daytime dwells was widespread.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 158 prevalent patients (90 CAPD, 68 CCPD). Demographic data, blood work, and 24-h dialysate and urine samples were collected from all participants between January 2004 and July 2006. They subsequently underwent assessment of ECFV by multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the relationship between peritoneal dialysis modality and ECFV. Potential cofounders including age, comorbidity, time on dialysis, residual renal function, and icodextrin use were identified a priori.

RESULTS

There were no differences in BP, use of antihypertensive medications, or the presence of peripheral edema between CAPD and CCPD patients. Similarly, there was no difference in the ratio of ECFV to total body water between CAPD (51.8%) and CCPD (51.9%) patients (P = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in BP, sodium removal, or volume control in patients who use a contemporary approach to CCPD that uses fewer night cycles and liberalizes the use of icodextrin when compared with CAPD.

摘要

背景与目的

与持续非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)相比,循环辅助腹膜透析(CCPD)因CCPD相关的短留腹期间腹膜钠筛过作用,导致钠清除减少。这可能对细胞外液量(ECFV)的管理产生不良后果。本研究比较了接受CAPD或CCPD治疗的患者的ECFV;通过限制交换次数使CCPD留腹时间最大化,且广泛使用艾考糊精进行日间长时留腹。

设计、地点、参与者及测量方法:这是一项对158例现患患者(90例CAPD,68例CCPD)的观察性横断面研究。在2004年1月至2006年7月期间,收集了所有参与者的人口统计学数据、血液检查结果以及24小时透析液和尿液样本。随后,通过多频生物电阻抗光谱分析对ECFV进行评估。采用多变量分析来确定腹膜透析方式与ECFV之间的关系。预先确定了包括年龄、合并症、透析时间、残余肾功能和艾考糊精使用情况等潜在混杂因素。

结果

CAPD和CCPD患者在血压、抗高血压药物使用情况或外周水肿的存在方面没有差异。同样,CAPD患者(51.8%)和CCPD患者(51.9%)的ECFV与总体水的比例也没有差异(P = 0.929)。

结论

与CAPD相比,采用减少夜间循环次数并放宽艾考糊精使用的现代CCPD方法的患者,在血压、钠清除或容量控制方面没有差异。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验