Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brimble, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Carlisle, E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brimble, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Carlisle, E. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18: 2112-2117
© 2003 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Original Article

Risk factors for increased variability in dialysis delivery in haemodialysis patients

K. Scott Brimble, Darin J. Treleaven, Joye St Onge and Euan J. Carlisle

McMaster University, Department of Medicine, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Scott Brimble, MD, Suite 708, 25 Charlton Avenue E, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. Email: brimbles{at}mcmaster.ca

Background. Numerous events may occur during a haemodialysis session, leading to variation in the quantity of dialysis received. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for variability in haemodialysis delivery.

Methods. Variability in dialysis delivery was expressed by the coefficient of variation (CV%) and calculated for the volume of blood processed (VBP) for all treatments and the monthly urea reduction ratio (URR) in each patient over an 8 month period. The univariate and multivariate relationships between various predictor variables and the URR and VBP CV% were determined.

Results. Eighty-nine patients were identified who met study criteria. The mean VBP and URR CV% were 10.3 ± 4.7 and 5.4 ± 3.8%, respectively. Patients with tunnelled catheters and total nursing-care patients had higher VBP and URR CV%, as evaluated by multivariate analysis. Patients with inadequate dialysis (mean URR <65%) had a higher VBP CV% than those patients with mean URR values >=65% (14.8 ± 5.4 vs 9.7 ± 4.5%; P = 0.01). An accurate determination of the URR in 90% of patients required 14 measurements in patients with catheters vs three and two measurements in arteriovenous fistulae and polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, respectively.

Conclusions. This study demonstrated that the use of a venous tunnelled catheter and dialysis in a total nursing-care unit were the only factors independently associated with greater variability in both VBP and URR. Attention to individual dialysis sessions in patients with tunnelled catheters or in a total nursing-care unit is prudent, particularly when identifying reasons for under-dialysis.

Keywords: access; adequacy; catheters; haemodialysis; urea reduction ratio; variability


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.