V. La Milia, M. Limardo, G. Virga, M. Crepaldi, F. Locatelli

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Assessing Peritoneal Barrier Function Role of the PET in Ongoing Management of PD Patients

Advertisements

Peritoneal transport assessment by peritoneal equilibration test with 3.86% glucose: A long-term prospective evaluation V. La Milia, P. Pozzoni, G. Virga,

An alcoholic patient with recurrent renal failure and proteinuria T. Kumagai, Y. Hori, G. Seki, Toshiro Fujita Kidney International Volume 70, Issue 8,

Home care assistance and the utilization of peritoneal dialysis

A skeptical view of assisted home peritoneal dialysis

Kidney International, Vol. 68 (2005) 840–846

Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory.

Volume 66, Issue 6, Pages (December 2004)

Beta blockers in the management of chronic kidney disease

Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)

Long-term follow-up of patients randomized to biocompatible or conventional peritoneal dialysis solutions show no difference in peritonitis or technique.

Use of icodextrin in high transport ultrafiltration failure

D. Teta, M. Maillard, G. Halabi, M. Burnier Kidney International

Impact of new dialysis solutions on peritonitis rates

The case ∣ A young woman with abdominal discomfort and a mass

Incremental peritoneal dialysis: Effects on the choice of dialysis modality, residual renal function and adequacy G. Viglino, L. Neri, S. Barbieri Kidney.

Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages (April 1998)

Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)

Glucose sparing in peritoneal dialysis: Implications and metrics

Ali K. Abu-Alfa, John Burkart, Beth Piraino, Joe Pulliam, Salim Mujais

Volume 57, Issue 6, Pages (June 2000)

Response to is the reduction in urea distribution volume over time in clinically stable dialysis patients real? S. Andrulli, S. Di Filippo, F. Locatelli

Volume 71, Issue 8, Pages (April 2007)

Volume 73, Issue 4, Pages (February 2008)

High volume peritoneal dialysis vs daily hemodialysis: A randomized, controlled trial in patients with acute kidney injury D.P. Gabriel, J.T. Caramori,

Volume 78, Issue 6, Pages (September 2010)

Cross-sectional validity of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system in dialysis patients: A simple assessment of symptom burden S.N. Davison, G.S.

Volume 70, Issue 11, Pages (December 2006)

Measuring transport of water across the peritoneal membrane

D. Coyne Kidney International Volume 69, Pages S1-S3 (May 2006)

Volume 73, Pages S5-S17 (April 2008)

Volume 73, Pages S94-S101 (April 2008)

Volume 70, Issue 12, Pages (December 2006)

Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory.

Analysis of fluid transport pathways and their determinants in peritoneal dialysis patients with ultrafiltration failure A. Parikova, W. Smit, D.G. Struijk,

Blood pressure targets in hemodialysis patients

Volume 70, Issue 7, Pages (October 2006)

Fructose intake as a risk factor for kidney stone disease

Volume 76, Issue 6, Pages (September 2009)

Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages (August 2005)

The third World Kidney Day: Looking back and thinking forward

Water-only pores and peritoneal dialysis

Volume 69, Issue 12, Pages (June 2006)

Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages (February 2006)

Microbiology and outcomes of peritonitis in North America

Randomized controlled study of biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions: Effect on residual renal function S.L.S. Fan, T. Pile, S. Punzalan, M.J.

Environmental exposure to lead and progressive diabetic nephropathy in patients with type II diabetes J.-L. Lin, D.-T. Lin-Tan, C.-C. Yu, Y.-J. Li, Y.-Y.

Profiling of peritoneal ultrafiltration

Volume 69, Issue 8, Pages (April 2006)

Volume 73, Pages S72-S75 (April 2008)

Scatterplots showing the association between the three peritoneal equilibration test (PET) parameters. Scatterplots showing the association between the.

Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages (February 2007)

A skeptical view of assisted home peritoneal dialysis

The valuable contribution of observational studies to nephrology

Peter G. Blake, Arsh K. Jain, Sechelle Yohanna Kidney International

Volume 70, Issue 10, Pages (November 2006)

Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages (August 2004)

Organ transplantation goes to the movies

Volume 70, Pages S84-S90 (November 2006)

Quantification of free water transport in peritoneal dialysis

Volume 70, Issue 3, Pages (August 2006)

Volume 71, Issue 9, Pages (May 2007)

Volume 70, Issue 5, Pages (September 2006)

Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages (January 2004)

Volume 70, Issue 10, Pages (November 2006)

The International Pediatric Peritonitis Registry: Starting to walk

Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages (November 2000)

Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages (October 2000)

E.F. Vonesh, J.J. Snyder, R.N. Foley, A.J. Collins

Characteristics of sudden death in hemodialysis patients

Presentation transcript:

Simultaneous measurement of peritoneal glucose and free water osmotic conductances V. La Milia, M. Limardo, G. Virga, M. Crepaldi, F. Locatelli Kidney International Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 643-650 (September 2007) DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002405 Copyright © 2007 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Groups of patients according to osmotic conductance to glucose (OCG) assessed with the Double Mini-PET. Kidney International 2007 72, 643-650DOI: (10.1038/sj.ki.5002405) Copyright © 2007 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 UF, UFSP and FWT during the 3.86% test of Double Mini-PET. UF, ultrafiltration; UFSP, ultrafiltration through small pores; FWT, free water transport. Kidney International 2007 72, 643-650DOI: (10.1038/sj.ki.5002405) Copyright © 2007 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Difference of (a) OCG, (b) UF, (c) UFSP and (d) FWT between the PD patients with and without UFF during the Double Mini-PET. OCG, osmotic conductance to glucose; UF, ultrafiltration; UFSP, ultrafiltration through small pores; FWT, free water transport; UFF, ultrafiltration failure. UF, UFSP, and FWT were calculated during the 3.86% test of Double Mini-PET. *P=0.0006 vs no UFF; **P<0.0001 vs no UFF; §P=0.0030 vs no UFF; §§P=0.0030 vs no UFF. Kidney International 2007 72, 643-650DOI: (10.1038/sj.ki.5002405) Copyright © 2007 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Difference of D/D0 (a), MTACGlucose (b), D/PCreatinine (c) and MTACCreatinine (d) between the PD patients with and without UFF during the Double Mini-PET. D/D0, ratio of dialysate glucose concentrations; MTAC, mass transfer area coefficient; D/P, dialysate/plasma concentration ratio; UFF, ultrafiltration failure. D/D0, D/P, and MTACs were calculated during the 1.36% test of Double Mini-PET: *P=0.3643 vs no UFF; **P=0.3099 vs no UFF; §P=0.1064 vs no UFF; §§P=0.0759 vs no UFF. Kidney International 2007 72, 643-650DOI: (10.1038/sj.ki.5002405) Copyright © 2007 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions