血液透析过程中透析器血液入口分压CO2变化作为血管通路再循环测量的评估

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Silverio Rotondi, Adolfo Perrotta, Giovanni Pintus, Laura Capasso, Marzia Pasquali, Alessio Farcomeni, Emanuela Paoloni, Sandro Mazzaferro, Lida Tartaglione
{"title":"血液透析过程中透析器血液入口分压CO2变化作为血管通路再循环测量的评估","authors":"Silverio Rotondi,&nbsp;Adolfo Perrotta,&nbsp;Giovanni Pintus,&nbsp;Laura Capasso,&nbsp;Marzia Pasquali,&nbsp;Alessio Farcomeni,&nbsp;Emanuela Paoloni,&nbsp;Sandro Mazzaferro,&nbsp;Lida Tartaglione","doi":"10.1111/hdi.13109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Vascular access recirculation during hemodialysis is associated with reduced effectiveness and worse survival outcomes. To evaluate recirculation, an increase in pCO<sub>2</sub> in the blood of the arterial line during hemodialysis (threshold of 4.5 mmHg) was proposed. The blood returning from the dialyzer in the venous line has significantly higher pCO<sub>2</sub>, so in the presence of recirculation, pCO2 in the arterial blood line may increase (ΔpCO<sub>2</sub>) during hemodialysis sessions. The aim of our study was to evaluate ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> as a diagnostic tool for vascular access recirculation in chronic hemodialysis patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluated vascular access recirculation with ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> and compared it with the results of a urea recirculation test, which is the gold standard. ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> was obtained from the difference in pCO<sub>2</sub> in the arterial line at baseline (pCO<sub>2</sub>T1) and after 5 min of hemodialysis (pCO<sub>2</sub>T2). ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> = pCO<sub>2</sub>T2–pCO<sub>2</sub>T1.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>In 70 hemodialysis patients (mean age: 70.52 ± 13.97 years; hemodialysis vintage of 41.36 ± 34.54, KT/V 1.4 ± 0.3), ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> was 4 ± 4 mmHg, and urea recirculation was 7% ± 9%. Vascular access recirculation was identified using both methods in 17 of 70 patients, who showed a ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> of 10 ± 5 mmHg and urea recirculation of 20% ± 9%; time in months of hemodialysis was the only difference between vascular access recirculation and non-vascular access recirculation patients (22 ± 19 vs. 46 ± 36, <i>p</i>: 0.05). In the non-vascular access recirculation group, the average ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> was 1.9 ± 2 (<i>p</i>: 0.001), and the urea recirculation % was 2.8 ± 3 (<i>p</i>: 0.001). The ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> correlated with the urea recirculation % (<i>R</i>: 0.728; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> in the arterial blood line during hemodialysis is an effective and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying recirculation of the vascular access but not its magnitude. The ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> test application is simple and economical and does not require special equipment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12815,"journal":{"name":"Hemodialysis International","volume":"27 4","pages":"370-377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hdi.13109","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of partial pressure CO2 change in the dialyzer blood inlet during hemodialysis as a measure of vascular access recirculation\",\"authors\":\"Silverio Rotondi,&nbsp;Adolfo Perrotta,&nbsp;Giovanni Pintus,&nbsp;Laura Capasso,&nbsp;Marzia Pasquali,&nbsp;Alessio Farcomeni,&nbsp;Emanuela Paoloni,&nbsp;Sandro Mazzaferro,&nbsp;Lida Tartaglione\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hdi.13109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Vascular access recirculation during hemodialysis is associated with reduced effectiveness and worse survival outcomes. To evaluate recirculation, an increase in pCO<sub>2</sub> in the blood of the arterial line during hemodialysis (threshold of 4.5 mmHg) was proposed. The blood returning from the dialyzer in the venous line has significantly higher pCO<sub>2</sub>, so in the presence of recirculation, pCO2 in the arterial blood line may increase (ΔpCO<sub>2</sub>) during hemodialysis sessions. The aim of our study was to evaluate ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> as a diagnostic tool for vascular access recirculation in chronic hemodialysis patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We evaluated vascular access recirculation with ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> and compared it with the results of a urea recirculation test, which is the gold standard. ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> was obtained from the difference in pCO<sub>2</sub> in the arterial line at baseline (pCO<sub>2</sub>T1) and after 5 min of hemodialysis (pCO<sub>2</sub>T2). ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> = pCO<sub>2</sub>T2–pCO<sub>2</sub>T1.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 70 hemodialysis patients (mean age: 70.52 ± 13.97 years; hemodialysis vintage of 41.36 ± 34.54, KT/V 1.4 ± 0.3), ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> was 4 ± 4 mmHg, and urea recirculation was 7% ± 9%. Vascular access recirculation was identified using both methods in 17 of 70 patients, who showed a ∆pCO<sub>2</sub> of 10 ± 5 mmHg and urea recirculation of 20% ± 9%; time in months of hemodialysis was the only difference between vascular access recirculation and non-vascular access recirculation patients (22 ± 19 vs. 46 ± 36, <i>p</i>: 0.05). In the non-vascular access recirculation group, the average ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> was 1.9 ± 2 (<i>p</i>: 0.001), and the urea recirculation % was 2.8 ± 3 (<i>p</i>: 0.001). The ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> correlated with the urea recirculation % (<i>R</i>: 0.728; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> in the arterial blood line during hemodialysis is an effective and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying recirculation of the vascular access but not its magnitude. The ΔpCO<sub>2</sub> test application is simple and economical and does not require special equipment.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hemodialysis International\",\"volume\":\"27 4\",\"pages\":\"370-377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hdi.13109\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hemodialysis International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hdi.13109\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hemodialysis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hdi.13109","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言血液透析期间的血管通路再循环与疗效降低和生存结果恶化有关。为了评估再循环,血液透析期间动脉线血液中pCO2的增加(阈值4.5 mmHg)。从静脉线路中的透析器返回的血液具有显著更高的pCO2,因此在存在再循环的情况下,动脉血液线路中的pCO2可能在血液透析期间增加(ΔpCO2)。我们研究的目的是评估ΔpCO2作为慢性血液透析患者血管通路再循环的诊断工具。方法我们用ΔpCO2评价血管通路再循环,并将其与金标准尿素再循环试验的结果进行比较。ΔpCO2是从基线(pCO2T1)和5 血液透析分钟数(pCO2T2)。∆pCO2 = pCO2T2–pCO2T1。70名血液透析患者(平均年龄:70.52 ± 13.97 年;血液透析年份41.36 ± 34.54,KT/V 1.4 ± 0.3),∆pCO2为4 ± 4. mmHg,尿素再循环为7% ± 9%。在70名患者中的17名患者中,使用这两种方法确定了血管通路再循环,这些患者的∆pCO2为10 ± 5. mmHg和尿素再循环20% ± 9%;血液透析的月数是血管通路再循环和非血管通路再循环患者之间的唯一差异(22 ± 19对46 ± 36,p:0.05)。在非血管通路再循环组中,平均ΔpCO2为1.9 ± 2(p:0.001),尿素再循环率为2.8 ± ΔpCO2与尿素再循环百分比相关(R:0.728;p <; 0.001)。讨论血液透析期间动脉血线中的ΔpCO2是一种有效和可靠的诊断工具,用于识别血管通路的再循环,但不是其大小。ΔpCO2测试应用简单经济,不需要特殊设备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of partial pressure CO2 change in the dialyzer blood inlet during hemodialysis as a measure of vascular access recirculation

Evaluation of partial pressure CO2 change in the dialyzer blood inlet during hemodialysis as a measure of vascular access recirculation

Introduction

Vascular access recirculation during hemodialysis is associated with reduced effectiveness and worse survival outcomes. To evaluate recirculation, an increase in pCO2 in the blood of the arterial line during hemodialysis (threshold of 4.5 mmHg) was proposed. The blood returning from the dialyzer in the venous line has significantly higher pCO2, so in the presence of recirculation, pCO2 in the arterial blood line may increase (ΔpCO2) during hemodialysis sessions. The aim of our study was to evaluate ΔpCO2 as a diagnostic tool for vascular access recirculation in chronic hemodialysis patients.

Methods

We evaluated vascular access recirculation with ΔpCO2 and compared it with the results of a urea recirculation test, which is the gold standard. ΔpCO2 was obtained from the difference in pCO2 in the arterial line at baseline (pCO2T1) and after 5 min of hemodialysis (pCO2T2). ∆pCO2 = pCO2T2–pCO2T1.

Findings

In 70 hemodialysis patients (mean age: 70.52 ± 13.97 years; hemodialysis vintage of 41.36 ± 34.54, KT/V 1.4 ± 0.3), ∆pCO2 was 4 ± 4 mmHg, and urea recirculation was 7% ± 9%. Vascular access recirculation was identified using both methods in 17 of 70 patients, who showed a ∆pCO2 of 10 ± 5 mmHg and urea recirculation of 20% ± 9%; time in months of hemodialysis was the only difference between vascular access recirculation and non-vascular access recirculation patients (22 ± 19 vs. 46 ± 36, p: 0.05). In the non-vascular access recirculation group, the average ΔpCO2 was 1.9 ± 2 (p: 0.001), and the urea recirculation % was 2.8 ± 3 (p: 0.001). The ΔpCO2 correlated with the urea recirculation % (R: 0.728; p < 0.001).

Discussion

ΔpCO2 in the arterial blood line during hemodialysis is an effective and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying recirculation of the vascular access but not its magnitude. The ΔpCO2 test application is simple and economical and does not require special equipment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hemodialysis International
Hemodialysis International UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Hemodialysis International was originally an annual publication containing the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Hemodialysis held in conjunction with the Annual Dialysis Conference. Since 2003, Hemodialysis International is published quarterly and contains original papers on clinical and experimental topics related to dialysis in addition to the Annual Dialysis Conference supplement. This journal is a must-have for nephrologists, nurses, and technicians worldwide. Quarterly issues of Hemodialysis International are included with your membership to the International Society for Hemodialysis. The journal contains original articles, review articles, and commentary to keep readers completely updated in the field of hemodialysis. Edited by international and multidisciplinary experts, Hemodialysis International disseminates critical information in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信