Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport
Romani, R F; Waniewski, J; Kruger, L; Lindholm, B; Nascimento, M M.
Affiliation
  • Romani, R F; Hospital Universitário Evangélico de Curitiba. Departamento de Nefrologia. Curitiba. BR
  • Waniewski, J; Polish Academy of Sciences. Nalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering. Warsaw. PL
  • Kruger, L; Hospital Universitário Evangélico de Curitiba. Departamento de Nefrologia. Curitiba. BR
  • Lindholm, B; Karolinska Institute. Department of Clinical Sciences and Intervention. Renal Medicine and Baxter Novum. Stockholm. SE
  • Nascimento, M M; Hospital Universitário Evangélico de Curitiba. Departamento de Nefrologia. Curitiba. BR
Rev. bras. pesqui. méd. biol ; Braz. j. med. biol. res;52(8): e8596, 2019. tab, graf
Article de En | LILACS | ID: biblio-1011601
Bibliothèque responsable: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
The peritoneal equilibration test (PET) is the most widespread method for assessing water and solute transport across the peritoneal membrane. This study compared three

methods:

traditional PET (t-PET), mini-PET, and modified PET (mod-PET). Non-diabetic adults (n=21) who had been on peritoneal dialysis (PD) for at least three months underwent t-PET (glucose 2.5%-4 h), mini-PET (glucose 3.86%-1 h), and mod-PET (glucose 3.86%-4 h) to determine dialysate-to-plasma concentration ratio (D/P) for creatinine and dialysate-to-baseline dialysate concentration ratio (D/D0) for glucose. Agreement between methods regarding D/P creatinine and D/D0 glucose was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson's correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis. D/P creatinine differed between t-PET and mini-PET (P<0.001) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P<0.01) but not between t-PET and mod-PET (P=0.746). The correlation of D/P creatinine with t-PET vs mod-PET was significant (r=0.387, P=0.009) but not that of t-PET vs mini-PET (r=0.088, P=0.241). Estimated bias was −0.029 (P=0.201) between t-PET and mod-PET, and 0.206 (P<0.001) between t-PET and mini-PET. D/D0 glucose differed between t-PET and mod-PET (P=0.003) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P=0.002) but not between t-PET and mini-PET (P=0.885). The correlations of D/D0 glucose in t-PET vs mod-PET (r=−0.017, P=0.421) or t-PET vs mini-PET (r=0.152, P=0.609) were not significant. Estimated bias was 0.122 (P=0.026) between t-PET and mod-PET, and 0.122 (P=0.026) between t-PET and mini-PET. The significant correlation of D/P creatinine between t-PET and mod-PET suggested that the latter is a good alternative to t-PET. There was no such correlation between t-PET and mini-PET.
Sujet(s)
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Indice: LILACS Sujet Principal: Dialyse péritonéale / Défaillance rénale chronique Limites du sujet: Female / Humans / Male langue: En Texte intégral: Braz. j. med. biol. res / Rev. bras. pesqui. méd. biol Thème du journal: BIOLOGIA / MEDICINA Année: 2019 Type: Article

Texte intégral: 1 Indice: LILACS Sujet Principal: Dialyse péritonéale / Défaillance rénale chronique Limites du sujet: Female / Humans / Male langue: En Texte intégral: Braz. j. med. biol. res / Rev. bras. pesqui. méd. biol Thème du journal: BIOLOGIA / MEDICINA Année: 2019 Type: Article