HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.01060209v1 4/7/1207    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Davenport, A. Articles by Willicombe, M. K. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davenport, A. Articles by Willicombe, M. K.

Hydration Status Does Not Influence Peritoneal Equilibration Test Ultrafiltration Volumes

University College London Center for Nephrology, University College London Medical School, London, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Andrew Davenport, UCL Center for Nephrology, Royal Free Campus, University College London Medical School, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-207-8302930; Fax: 44-207-3178591; E-mail: Andrew.davenport{at}royalfree.nhs.uk

Background and objectives: The peritoneal equilibration test (PET) was developed some 25 yr ago and has been used to help prescribe peritoneal dialysis. However, PET is affected by several factors, including diabetes and inflammation. It was speculated that extracellular fluid overload would increase PET ultrafiltration volumes, and therefore the usefulness of the PET in routine clinical practice was audited.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Data from 211 consecutive patients attending a university teaching hospital for a standard PET who had multifrequency bioimpedance performance were analyzed to determine which factors affected net PET ultrafiltration volumes.

Results: Net PET ultrafiltration volume was independent of gender, age, diabetes, residual renal function, peritoneal dialysis prescriptions (modes and dialysates), extracellular fluid volume, or C-reactive protein (CRP). There was an inverse regression with serum albumin and sodium on multiple logistical regression analysis (F = 13.4, P < 0.001 and F = 10.1, P = 0.001, respectively) and a positive regression with 24-h net peritoneal ultrafiltration volumes (F = 15.5, P < 0.001). As expected, there was a strong correlation with net sodium losses (r = 0.99, P < 0001).

Conclusions: It was found that PET test ultrafiltration volume in routine clinical practice was not affected by CRP, hyperglycemia, or extracellular fluid volume overload. Ultrafiltration volumes were increased in those patients with reduced serum sodium and albumin, most likely because of inflammation and protein malnutrition.