Erratum
for Schneditz et al., Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 13 (3) 739-744.
Nephrol Dial Transplant (2002) 17: 1539
© 2002 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association
Stability of access resistance during haemodialysis
Daniel Schneditz,
Zuoheng Fan,
Allen Kaufman and
Nathan W. Levin
NDT (1998) 13: 739–744
In a recent discussion referring to our measurements of access resistance in dialysis patients the authors identified a mistake in the calculation of peripheral resistance units (PRU). Data were divided by 0.6 instead of multiplied because of a mistake in placing the parentheses in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Thus, the PRU published in NDT (1998) 13: 739–744 have to be multiplied by a constant factor of 0.36 to obtain the correct absolute values for total peripheral resistance (TPR), systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and access resistance (AR) (Abstract, Results, Table 1
, Figure 4a and b). The analysis of the changes in TPR (
TPR%), SVR (SVR%) and AR (AR%), and the conclusion that access resistance remained stable during the observation phase, are not affected by this mistake. The authors apologize for this error and for any problems this mistake may have caused. The correct versions of Table 1 and Figure 4a and b are shown below.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Access resistance in PRU (peripheral resistance units) in upper arm (u) and forearm (l) grafts (g) and fistulae (f).
|
|
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4a, b. Systemic vascular and access resistance. (a) Systemic vascular resistance dropped between measurements done early (index 1) and late (index 4) in dialysis: SVR4=0.59*SVR1+0.45, r2=0.46. (b) Access resistance remained unchanged between measurements done early (index 1) and late (index 4) in dialysis; AR4=0.95*AR1+0.43, r2=0.70.
|
|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
