Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on July 1, 2009

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp319
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/11/3513    most recent
gfp319v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gomes, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by García Falcón, T.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gomes, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by García Falcón, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



Categorization of sodium sieving by 2.27% and 3.86% peritoneal equilibration tests—a comparative analysis in the clinical setting

Ana Marta Gomes1, Miguel Pérez Fontán2, Ana Rodríguez-Carmona1, Arancha Sastre1, Helena Díaz Cambre1, Andrés López Muñiz1 and Teresa García Falcón1

1 Division of Nephrology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña 2 Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Institute, University of A Coruña, Spain

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Ana Marta Gomes; E-mail: ampgomes{at}gmail.com



  Abstract

Background. Analysis of the dialysate sodium concentration during a peritoneal equilibration test (PET) provides information on the rates of water and solute transport through different membrane pathways. A hypertonic (3.86%) glucose-based dialysate may enhance the accuracy of analysis. There are still gaps in our knowledge regarding this question, in the clinical setting.

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the categorization of the sodium sieving effect in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients by 2.27% and 3.86% PETs, and to disclose clinical correlates of this phenomenon.

Method. Ninety PD patients underwent prospectively 2.27% and 3.86% modified (dialysate samples at 0, 60, 90, 120 and 240 min) PETs, in a random order. We searched for differences in the time profiles of sodium sieving and its categorization. We correlated sodium sieving with ultrafiltration (UF) and solute transport capacity, as also with selected clinical and demographic variables, using a multivariate approach.

Results. The maximum dip in the dialysate sodium concentration (11.1 mM/L, 3.86% versus 7.1 mM/L, 2.27%, P < 0.001) was most common after 90 min in the 3.86% PET, with the 2.27% test somewhere between 60 and 90 min. Low sodium sieving (defined by a dip <5 mM/L at 60 min) was observed in 8.9% of the patients in the 3.86% test. The same limit categorized 34.4% of the patients as low sieving in the 2.27% test (100.0% sensitivity and 72.0% specificity, using 3.86% as a reference). UF and D/P240 min creatinine were independent predictors of the sodium sieving effect in both tests. Moreover, multivariate analysis disclosed a consistent inverse correlation between GFR and sodium sieving in both the 2.27% (B = –0.23, 95% CI –0.40, –0.07, P = 0.006) and 3.86% PET (B = –0.46, 95% CI –0.65, –0.26, P < 0.0005).

Conclusions. The standard 2.27% PET permits some categorization of sodium sieving in PD patients. However, the information provided by this test lacks the discriminatory capacity of the 3.86% PET, which should be considered the one for reference for this purpose. GFR keeps a consistent inverse correlation with the intensity of sodium sieving in both the 2.27% and 3.86% PET.

Keywords: peritoneal equilibration test; residual renal function; sodium sieving; ultrafiltration

Received for publication: 22.12.08
Accepted in revised form: 5. 6.09


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.