Suppr超能文献

一种改进的慢停流再循环方法的验证

Validation of a revised slow-stop flow recirculation method.

作者信息

Kapoian T, Steward C A, Sherman R A

机构信息

Department of Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903, USA.

出版信息

Kidney Int. 1997 Sep;52(3):839-42. doi: 10.1038/ki.1997.402.

Abstract

Slow flow/stop flow methods have replaced the three needle technique as methods of choice for measuring recirculation. However, the time delay after reducing blood flow may affect the BUN in the systemic (slow flow/stop flow arterial line) sample and therefore limit the accuracy of this methodology. It has been observed that recirculation does not occur in a properly cannulated access unless the access blood flow rate is less than the dialyzer blood flow rate (BFR). This suggests that the systemic sample could be obtained at a higher than usual blood pump rate. We studied 50 patients and compared a revised slow-stop flow (S/SF) recirculation technique in which the systemic sample was drawn after the blood pump rate was reduced to 120 ml/min for 10 seconds and then stopped, to a non-urea based method that utilized indicator velocity dilution (IVDM). Seven patients were found to have recirculation by IVDM; all had recirculation by S/SF of more than 10% (minimum 16.7%) and an access BFR that was less than the dialyzer BFR. In the 43 patients without recirculation by IVDM, the mean recirculation by S/SF was 1.9 +/- 3.2% (mean +/- SD). Five patients without recirculation by IVDM had more than 5% recirculation by S/SF (range, 5.9 to 8.3%). Although there was a small systematic tendency to overestimate recirculation, this modified urea based method was still able to detect recirculation with good reliability. Single values above 10% are highly likely to indicate the presence of true recirculation. Repeated values over 5%, are also likely to be significant, indicating the presence of true recirculation and its clinical correlate, marginal access blood flow.

摘要

慢流/停流方法已取代三针技术,成为测量再循环的首选方法。然而,减少血流后的时间延迟可能会影响全身(慢流/停流动脉管路)样本中的尿素氮,从而限制了该方法的准确性。据观察,除非通路血流量低于透析器血流量(BFR),否则在正确插管的通路中不会发生再循环。这表明可以在高于通常血泵速率的情况下获取全身样本。我们研究了50例患者,并将一种改良的慢-停流(S/SF)再循环技术与一种基于指示剂速度稀释(IVDM)的非尿素方法进行了比较。在改良的慢-停流技术中,血泵速率降至120 ml/min持续10秒然后停止后采集全身样本。通过IVDM发现7例患者存在再循环;所有患者通过S/SF的再循环均超过10%(最低为16.7%),且通路BFR低于透析器BFR。在43例通过IVDM未发现再循环的患者中,通过S/SF的平均再循环为1.9±3.2%(平均值±标准差)。5例通过IVDM未发现再循环的患者通过S/SF的再循环超过5%(范围为5.9%至8.3%)。尽管存在轻微的系统性高估再循环的倾向,但这种改良的基于尿素的方法仍能够可靠地检测再循环。单次值高于10%很可能表明存在真正的再循环。多次值超过5%也可能具有显著性,表明存在真正的再循环及其临床关联,即边缘通路血流量。

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