Buur T, Will E J
Department of Renal Medicine, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1994;9(4):395-8.
The traditional method for measuring vascular access recirculation has been questioned. We have compared methods based on samples from the femoral artery, a peripheral vein, and a slow flow technique. Seventeen patients on high-flux haemodialysis with blood flow 355 +/- 42 ml/min were examined after 60 min of treatment. Using urea as the marker solute, recirculation was 0.0 +/- 1.8% (femoral artery), 6.7 +/- 2.7% (peripheral vein), and 4.7 +/- 1.6% (slow flow), and using creatinine 0.1 +/- 1.4% (femoral artery), 7.8 +/- 3.0% (peripheral vein) and 2.9 +/- 1.2 (slow flow). Access recirculation was non-existent among these patients when using the femoral artery sample: maximum 3.1%. In contrast, the traditional method (peripheral vein) produced values up to 13.5%. The observed differences can be explained by cardiopulmonary recirculation. Blood returning from the periphery mixes with blood returning from the dialyser, so that solute concentration will be less in femoral artery than in peripheral vein. In conclusion, neither the traditional method nor slow-flow techniques accurately quantify access recirculation. Cardiopulmonary recirculation must be considered in kinetic studies, including routine dialysis prescription, where samples should be taken at least 2 min after termination of dialysis.
传统的测量血管通路再循环的方法受到了质疑。我们比较了基于股动脉、外周静脉样本以及慢流技术的几种方法。对17例接受高通量血液透析、血流量为355±42 ml/分钟的患者,在治疗60分钟后进行了检查。以尿素作为标记溶质,再循环率分别为:股动脉0.0±1.8%,外周静脉6.7±2.7%,慢流技术4.7±1.6%;以肌酐作为标记溶质时,再循环率分别为:股动脉0.1±1.4%,外周静脉7.8±3.0%,慢流技术2.9±1.2%。使用股动脉样本时,这些患者中不存在血管通路再循环:最高为3.1%。相比之下,传统方法(外周静脉)得出的值高达13.5%。观察到的差异可通过心肺再循环来解释。从外周返回的血液与从透析器返回的血液混合,因此股动脉中的溶质浓度将低于外周静脉。总之,传统方法和慢流技术都不能准确量化血管通路再循环。在包括常规透析处方在内的动力学研究中,必须考虑心肺再循环,在这些研究中,样本应在透析结束后至少2分钟采集。