Baum M, Powell D, Calvin S, McDaid T, McHenry K, Mar H, Potter D
N Engl J Med. 1982 Dec 16;307(25):1537-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198212163072501.
The clinical and biochemical effects of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in 20 children and of hemodialysis in 16 children were compared over a 2 1/2-year period. Statistically significant differences between the treatment groups included higher hematocrit, higher serum carbon dioxide and cholesterol levels, large intake of calories and protein, and lower systolic blood pressure and rates of transfusion in the patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. These patients had more complications than the patients receiving hemodialysis, but hospitalization rates in the two groups were similar. The cost of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was +19,600 per patient-year; the cost of hemodialysis was +54,300 per patient-year; the cost of hemodialysis was +54,300 per patient-year. There were four treatment failures with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and one with hemodialysis. Patients treated with both forms of dialysis preferred continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. We conclude that continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis is an important alternative to hemodialysis in children.
在2年半的时间里，对20名接受持续性非卧床腹膜透析的儿童和16名接受血液透析的儿童的临床和生化效应进行了比较。治疗组之间具有统计学意义的差异包括：接受持续性非卧床腹膜透析的患者血细胞比容更高、血清二氧化碳和胆固醇水平更高、热量和蛋白质摄入量更大、收缩压更低以及输血率更低。这些患者比接受血液透析的患者有更多并发症，但两组的住院率相似。持续性非卧床腹膜透析的费用为每位患者每年19,600美元；血液透析的费用为每位患者每年54,300美元。持续性非卧床腹膜透析有4例治疗失败，血液透析有1例治疗失败。接受两种透析方式治疗的患者更喜欢持续性非卧床腹膜透析。我们得出结论，持续性非卧床腹膜透析是儿童血液透析的重要替代方法。
