Jacobs C
Presse Med. 1995 Jun 10;24(21):972-4.
There are currently more than 500,000 people on long-term renal dialysis throughout the world, some have been treated for more than 20 years. Despite this major success in the treatment of chronic renal failure, many unsolved problems remain, often leading to controversial debate. Should dialysis be "adequate" or "optimal"? To answer this question results are evaluated on the basis of mid-term and long-term survival rates, morbidity and quality of life criteria including psychological tolerance. While the need for a reliable vascular access and an appropriate dialysis system is obvious for haemodialysis, debate has focused on the optimal dialysis time; total weekly duration under 10-11 hours is sometimes advocated. Nephrologists have emphasized that peritoneal dialysis frees patients from the risk of vascular puncture and the need for anticoagulation while providing better haemodynamic stability. The higher morbidity and risk of infectious complications are however major drawbacks of peritoneal dialysis. Both techniques may require use of recombinant human erythropoietin and daily protein intake of about 1.2 g/kg body weight is mandatory. Despite all the progress made in dialysis concepts and technical applications, several factors may lead to "inadequate" dialysis in some patients. Some, such as insufficient blood flow, are subject to corrective measures, others are cost-related. What is the optimal duration of a dialysis session? How often should dialysers be reused? Are bio-compatible membranes or systems for producing sterile haemodialysis fluid cost-effective? Finally, our understanding of the uraemic toxicity syndrome is still insufficient for a totally satisfactory treatment of renal failure. Further advances in technology and in our understanding of the pathophysiology of renal function and dialysis are needed to reduce morbidity of patients treated for end-stage chronic renal failure and improve their quality of life.
目前全世界有超过50万人在进行长期肾脏透析,有些人已经接受治疗超过20年。尽管在慢性肾衰竭的治疗方面取得了这一重大成功,但许多未解决的问题仍然存在,常常引发争议性的辩论。透析应该是“充分的”还是“最佳的”?为了回答这个问题,根据中期和长期生存率、发病率以及包括心理承受能力在内的生活质量标准来评估结果。虽然对于血液透析来说,显然需要可靠的血管通路和合适的透析系统,但辩论的焦点一直是最佳透析时间;有时有人主张每周总时长低于10 - 11小时。肾脏病学家强调,腹膜透析使患者免受血管穿刺风险和抗凝需求,同时提供更好的血流动力学稳定性。然而,较高的发病率和感染并发症风险是腹膜透析的主要缺点。两种技术都可能需要使用重组人促红细胞生成素,并且每天每千克体重约1.2克的蛋白质摄入量是必需的。尽管在透析概念和技术应用方面取得了所有进展,但一些因素可能导致某些患者的透析“不充分”。有些因素,如血流量不足,可以采取纠正措施,其他因素则与成本有关。透析疗程的最佳时长是多少?透析器应该多久复用一次?生物相容性膜或生产无菌血液透析液的系统是否具有成本效益?最后,我们对尿毒症毒性综合征的理解仍然不足以实现对肾衰竭的完全令人满意的治疗。需要在技术以及我们对肾功能和透析病理生理学的理解方面取得进一步进展,以降低终末期慢性肾衰竭患者的发病率并改善他们的生活质量。