4.6 Article

Prediction equation for calculating residual kidney urea clearance using urine collections for different hemodialysis treatment frequencies and interdialytic intervals

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 530-539

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfw473

关键词

chronic hemodialysis; clearance; guidelines; hemodialysis; predialysis

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease of the National Institutes of Health [K24-DK091419]
  2. AVEO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the study was to explore the precision of an equation designed to estimate residual kidney urea clearance (K-RU) from interdialytic urine collection data and pre-hemodialysis (HD) serum urea nitrogen (SUN) in different hemodialysis treatment schedules. The generalizability of the proposed equation was tested in 32 731 HD treatments where urine was collected prior to a dialysis session, mostly for 24 h but sometimes longer, in patients being dialyzed 1-4 times/week. The residual kidney urea clearance estimating equation predicted a K-RU that matched the one computed by formal modeling within 5% in > 98% of sessions analyzed. The errors in estimated versus modeled K-RU for interdialytic intervals (IDIs) of 2, 3, 4 and 7 days, were 1.6 +/- 1.5%, -0.4 +/- 1.6%, 0.9 +/- 1.6%, and 1.5 +/- 1.2%, respectively. Percent errors were similar for schedules of 1-4/week with the exception of urine collection during the 2-day interval of a 2:5-day twice-weekly schedule; here error averaged 5.0 +/- 1.2%. Use of the average of the SUN values at the start and end of the collection period overestimated modeled K-RU by 11.3 +/- 4.5%, whereas an equation suggested by others underestimated modeled K-RU by -9.9 +/- 3.4%. The equation tested predicts values for K-RU that are similar to those obtained from formal urea kinetic modeling, with percent errors that only rarely exceed 5%. It gives relatively precise results for a wide range of HD treatment schedules, IDIs and urine collection periods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据