Geary D F, McLorie G A, Bahoric A, Sakai H, Albisser A M, Balfe J W
Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Int J Artif Organs. 1989 Jul;12(7):428-32.
Continuous flow (CFPD) and intermittent (IPD) peritoneal dialysis were compared in pigs, using a double lumen silicone rubber peritoneal dialysis catheter. For CFPD, after instillation of 30 ml/kg into the peritoneal cavity, dialysate was continually infused and drained at approximately 25 ml/kg/h. A dwell volume of 30 ml/kg was also used for IPD. Similar length cycles of each technique were compared in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2 total solute clearance and ultrafiltration achieved over two consecutive IPD cycles were compared with CFPD of a similar duration. The catheter functioned well with few complications. In Experiment 1, CFPD produced greater ultrafiltration and significantly improved the clearance of urea, potassium and phosphate compared to IPD. No significant difference between the techniques was observed in Experiment 2. Our data suggest that for CFPD to retain its advantage over IPD intermittent complete drainage of the peritoneal cavity may be necessary.
使用双腔硅橡胶腹膜透析导管,在猪身上比较了持续流动腹膜透析(CFPD)和间歇性腹膜透析(IPD)。对于CFPD,向腹腔内注入30 ml/kg后,透析液以约25 ml/kg/h的速度持续输注和引流。IPD也使用30 ml/kg的驻留量。在实验1中比较了每种技术的相似时长周期。在实验2中,将连续两个IPD周期的总溶质清除率和超滤与相似持续时间的CFPD进行了比较。导管功能良好,并发症很少。在实验1中,与IPD相比,CFPD产生了更大的超滤,并显著提高了尿素、钾和磷酸盐的清除率。在实验2中,未观察到两种技术之间的显著差异。我们的数据表明,为使CFPD保持优于IPD的优势,可能需要间歇性地完全排空腹腔。