Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on April 12, 2005
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2005 20(6):1192-1200; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh806
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/6/1192    most recent
gfh806v1
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 (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aanen, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aanen, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org


Original Article

A detailed analysis of sodium removal by peritoneal dialysis: comparison with predictions from the three-pore model of membrane function

Marissa C. Aanen1, Daniele Venturoli2 and Simon J. Davies3

1 Department of Nephrology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2 Department of Nephrology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden and 3 Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire and Institute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, UK

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Professor Simon J. Davies, Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Princes Road, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 7LN, UK. Email: SimonDavies1{at}compuserve.com

Background. The development of fluid and salt retention is a potential problem for all peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Sodium removal by the peritoneum is predominantly determined by convective fluid loss but influenced by diffusion and sieving due to free water transport as predicted by the three-pore model (TPM). The aim of the study was to establish the effect of transport status, dwell length and glucose concentration on observed ultrafiltration (UF), dialysate sodium concentration ([Na+]D) and removal, and compare this with that predicted by a computer program based on the principles of the TPM.

Methods. This was a cross-sectional study of UF and [Na+]D collected prospectively from dwells classified by length, glucose concentration and membrane transport characteristics. Solute transport, converted to area parameter and UF capacity, was measured on each occasion by the peritoneal equilibration test. These parameters, along with plasma [Na+], were entered into the computer model. Fixed values for other parameters, e.g. hydraulic conductance and lymphatic absorption and sump volume, were used.

Results. A total of 1853 dwells from 182 patients [10% were on automated PD (APD)] were analysed. There was a high degree of correlation (r = 0.83–95, P<0.001) between the observed and predicted values for UF, [Na+]D and sodium removal across the full range of dwell categories. The model overpredicted UF as the net volume increased with increasing glucose concentration, independently of solute transport. This bias was not fully explained by the preferential use of hypertonic dialysate by patients with reduced UF capacity. The prediction of [Na+]D described sodium sieving, which was overestimated in a small number of patients with UF failure. There were no discrepancies between continous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and APD patients.

Conclusion. This analysis endorses the TPM as a description of membrane function, particularly in relation to sodium sieving and removal. The relationship between dialysate glucose concentration and achieved UF appears to be more complex; even accounting for extended time on treatment and reduction in the osmotic conductance in patients preferentially using hypertonic exchanges, further adjustments may be needed to account for the tendency to overestimate UF.

Keywords: automated peritoneal dialysis (APD); computer modelling; continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD); hydraulic conductance; peritoneal membrane; sodium sieving


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
A. M. Gomes, M. P. Fontan, A. Rodriguez-Carmona, A. Sastre, H. D. Cambre, A. L. Muniz, and T. G. Falcon
Categorization of sodium sieving by 2.27% and 3.86% peritoneal equilibration tests--a comparative analysis in the clinical setting
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., November 1, 2009; 24(11): 3513 - 3520.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
pdiHome page
P. Freida, B. Issad, M. Dratwa, T. Lobbedez, L. Wu, J. K. Leypoldt, and J. C. Divino-Filho
A COMBINED CRYSTALLOID AND COLLOID PD SOLUTION AS A GLUCOSE-SPARING STRATEGY FOR VOLUME CONTROL IN HIGH-TRANSPORT APD PATIENTS: A PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER STUDY
Perit. Dial. Int., July 1, 2009; 29(4): 433 - 442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CJASNHome page
A. Davenport and M. K. Willicombe
Hydration Status Does Not Influence Peritoneal Equilibration Test Ultrafiltration Volumes
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2009; 4(7): 1207 - 1212.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
S. Davies, O. Carlsson, O. Simonsen, A.-C. Johansson, D. Venturoli, I. Ledebo, A. Wieslander, C. Chan, and B. Rippe
The effects of low-sodium peritoneal dialysis fluids on blood pressure, thirst and volume status
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1609 - 1617.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



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.