Aasarød K, Widerøe T E, Flakne S C
Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Trondheim, Norway.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997 Oct;12(10):2128-32. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ndt.a027739.
The most efficient way to perform automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) has not yet been defined. Tidal peritoneal dialysis (TPD) has been claimed to be more efficient than traditional intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD), but few comparative studies have been done keeping dialysate flow the same in the two treatment techniques.
Six patients were treated with 10, 14 and 24 litres total dialysis fluid volume during 9 h (flow rate 18.5, 25.9 and 44.4 ml/min), receiving the treatments both as IPD and TPD. Glucose concentration in the fluid was held constant during all treatments. Transperitoneal clearances (ml/min) for urea, creatinine and uric acid and ultrafiltration volume was calculated, and comparisons made between TPD and IPD. The total intraperitoneal dwell time was calculated for each treatment session. A peritoneal equilibration test was also done for each patient.
The ratio of the creatinine concentration in dialysate to the concentration in plasma at 4 h obtained with the peritoneal equilibration test (PET) averaged 0.77 (range 0.69-0.82). Urea clearance was higher for IPD than for TPD with 10 litres: 14.3 +/- 2.4 and 13.3 +/- 2.7 (P = 0.0092). For 14 and 24 litres urea clearance for IPD and TPD was 16.9 +/- 2.3 and 15.9 +/- 3.5 (n.s.) and 20.9 +/- 3.6 and 19.9 +/- 5.6 (n.s.) respectively. Creatinine clearance was higher for IPD than for TPD with 10 litres: 9.6 +/- 1.3 and 8.9 +/- 1.3 (P = 0.0002). For 14 and 24 litres creatinine clearance for IPD and TPD was 11.0 +/- 0.7 and 9.9 +/- 2.0 (n.s.) and 12.3 +/- 1.2 and 12.4 +/- 2.2 (n.s.) respectively. Uric acid clearance was higher for IPD than for TPD with 10 litres: 8.4 +/- 1.3 and 7.7 +/- 1.0 (P = 0.0054). For 14 and 24 litres uric acid clearance for IPD and TPD was 9.3 +/- 1.7 and 8.9 +/- 2.2 (n.s.) and 11.3 +/- 2.9 and 10.6 +/- 2.6 (n.s.) respectively. IPD gave significantly higher ultrafiltration volume (ml) than IPD for both 10 and 14 litres: 944 +/- 278 and 783 +/- 200 (P = 0.0313) and 1147 +/- 202 and 937 +/- 211 (P = 0.0478). For 24 litres there was no significant difference between IPD and TPD: 1220 +/- 224 and 1253 +/- 256.
With the lowest dialysate flow rate (18.5 ml/min), solute clearance and ultrafiltration volume was higher on IPD than on TPD. With the intermediate flow rate (25.9 ml/min) the ultrafiltration volume was higher on IPD, but no difference was found for solute clearance. With the highest flow rate (44.4 ml/min) there was no difference neither for ultrafiltration nor for solute clearances.
尚未确定进行自动化腹膜透析(APD)的最有效方法。有人声称潮式腹膜透析(TPD)比传统间歇性腹膜透析(IPD)更有效,但很少有比较研究在两种治疗技术中保持相同的透析液流速。
6名患者在9小时内分别接受10升、14升和24升总透析液量的治疗(流速分别为18.5、25.9和44.4毫升/分钟),同时接受IPD和TPD两种治疗方式。在所有治疗过程中,透析液中的葡萄糖浓度保持恒定。计算尿素、肌酐和尿酸的跨腹膜清除率(毫升/分钟)以及超滤量,并对TPD和IPD进行比较。计算每个治疗时段的总腹膜停留时间。还对每位患者进行了腹膜平衡试验。
腹膜平衡试验(PET)在4小时时透析液中肌酐浓度与血浆中肌酐浓度的比值平均为0.77(范围为0.69 - 0.82)。10升透析液时,IPD的尿素清除率高于TPD:分别为14.3±2.4和13.3±2.7(P = 0.0092)。14升和24升时,IPD和TPD的尿素清除率分别为16.9±2.3和15.9±3.5(无显著差异)以及20.9±3.6和19.9±5.6(无显著差异)。10升透析液时,IPD的肌酐清除率高于TPD:分别为9.6±1.3和8.9±1.3(P = 0.0002)。14升和24升时,IPD和TPD的肌酐清除率分别为11.0±0.7和9.9±2.0(无显著差异)以及12.3±1.2和12.4±2.2(无显著差异)。10升和14升时,IPD的超滤量显著高于TPD:分别为944±278和783±200(P = 0.0313)以及1147±202和937±211(P = 0.0478)。对于24升透析液,IPD和TPD之间无显著差异:分别为1220±224和1253±256。
在最低透析液流速(18.5毫升/分钟)时,IPD的溶质清除率和超滤量高于TPD。在中等流速(25.9毫升/分钟)时,IPD的超滤量更高,但溶质清除率无差异。在最高流速(44.4毫升/分钟)时,超滤量和溶质清除率均无差异。