Understand the difference between clinical measured ultrafiltrationand real ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis
Zanzhe Yu, Zhuqing Wang, Qin Wang, Minfang Zhang, Haijiao Jin, Li Ding, Hao Yan, Jiaying Huang, Yan Jin, Simon Davies, Wei Fang, Zhaohui Ni, Zanzhe Yu, Zhuqing Wang, Qin Wang, Minfang Zhang, Haijiao Jin, Li Ding, Hao Yan, Jiaying Huang, Yan Jin, Simon Davies, Wei Fang, Zhaohui Ni
Abstract
Background: It has been noticed for years that ultrafiltration (UF) is important for survival in peritoneal dialysis. On the other hand, precise and convenient UF measurement suitable for patient daily practice is not as straight forward as it is to measure UF in the lab. Both overfill and flush before fill used to be source of measurement error for clinical practice. However, controversy finding around UF in peritoneal dialysis still exists in some situation. The current study was to understand the difference between clinical measured UF and real UF. The effect of evaporation and specific gravity in clinical UF measurement were tested in the study.
Methods: Four different brands of dialysate were purchased from the market. The freshest dialysate available in the market were intentionally picked. The bags were all 2 L, 2.5% dextrose and traditional lactate buffered PD solution. They were stored in four different conditions with controlled temperature and humidity. The bags were weighted at baseline, 6 months and 12 months of storage. Specific gravity was measured in mixed 24 h drainage dialysate from 261 CAPD patients when they come for their routine solute clearance test.
Results: There was significant difference in dialysate bag weight at baseline between brands. The weight declined significantly after 12 month's storage. The weight loss was greater in higher temperature and lower humidity. The dialysate in non-PVC package lose less weight than PVC package. The specific gravity of dialysate drainage was significantly higher than pure water and it was related to dialysate protein concentration.
Conclusion: Storage condition and duration, as well as the type of dialysate package have significant impact in dialysate bag weight before use. Evaporation is likely to be the reason behind. The fact that specific gravity of dialysate drainage is higher than 1 g/ml overestimates UF in manual exchanges, which contributes to systemic measurement error of ultrafiltration in CAPD.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03864120 (March 8, 2019) (Understand the Difference Between Clinical Measured Ultrafiltration and Real Ultrafiltration).
Conflict of interest statement
There is no competing interest.
© 2021. The Author(s).
Figures
References
- Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimburger O, Krediet R, Plum J, Rodrigues A, Selgas R, Struijk D, Verger C, Dialysis EEGoP European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. 7 Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(Suppl 9):ix24–ix27.
- Woodrow G, Davies S. Renal association clinical practice guideline on peritoneal dialysis. Nephron Clin Pract. 2011;118(Suppl 1):c287–c310. doi: 10.1159/000328073.
- Woodrow G, Fan SL, Reid C, Denning J, Pyrah AN. Renal association clinical practice guideline on peritoneal dialysis in adults and children. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18:333. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0687-2.
- La Milia V, Pozzoni P, Crepaldi M, Locatelli F. Overfill of peritoneal dialysis bags as a cause of underestimation of ultrafiltration failure. Perit Dial Int. 2006;26:503–505. doi: 10.1177/089686080602600416.
- Bernardini J, Florio T, Bender F, Fried L, Piraino B. Methods to determine drain volume for peritoneal dialysis clearances. Perit Dial Int. 2004;24:182–185. doi: 10.1177/089686080402400210.
- Rodriguez-Carmona A, Fontan MP. Sodium removal in patients undergoing CAPD and automated peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2002;22:705–713. doi: 10.1177/089686080202200610.
- Davies SJ. Overfill or ultrafiltration? We need to be clear. Perit Dial Int. 2006;26:449–451. doi: 10.1177/089686080602600408.
- Mahon A, Fan SL. Accuracy of ultrafiltration volume measurements for patients on peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2005;25:92–93. doi: 10.1177/089686080502500118.
- Rodriguez-Carmona A, Perez-Fontan M, Garca-Naveiro R, Villaverde P, Peteiro J. Compared time profiles of ultrafiltration, sodium removal, and renal function in incident CAPD and automated peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;44:132–145. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.03.035.
- Ortega O, Gallar P, Carreno A, Gutierrez M, Rodriguez I, Oliet A, Vigil A, Gimenez E. Peritoneal sodium mass removal in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and automated peritoneal dialysis: influence on blood pressure control. Am J Nephrol. 2001;21:189–193. doi: 10.1159/000046246.
- McCafferty K, Fan SL. Are we underestimating the problem of ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis patients? Perit Dial Int. 2006;26:349–352. doi: 10.1177/089686080602600312.
- Maharjan SRS, Davenport A. Comparison of sodium removal in peritoneal dialysis patients treated by continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis. J Nephrol. 2019;32:1011–1019. doi: 10.1007/s40620-019-00646-7.
- Zhou J, Cao X, Lin H, Ni Z, He Y, Chen M, Zheng H, Chen X. Safety and effectiveness evaluation of a domestic peritoneal dialysis fluid packed in non-PVC bags: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:592. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1131-1.
Source: PubMed