1. Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 1052-1060 (April 1998)
Effect of on-line conductivity plasma ultrafiltrate kinetic modeling on cardiovascular stability of hemodialysis patients 
Francesco Locatelli, Simeone Andrulli, Salvatore Di Filippo, Bruno Redaelli, Stefano Mangano, Carlo Navino, Rosario Ariano, Marco Tagliaferri, Tommaso Fidelio, Mauro Corti, Silvia Civardi, Ciro Tetta 
Kidney International 
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages (April 1998)
DOI: /j x
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
Study protocol. Treatment A consisted of a constant dialysate conductivity, and treatment B used the modeled dialysate conductivity.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
Diagram showing the modified hemodiafiltration technique (paired filtration dialysis, PFD) and the independent PC conductivity kinetic model. The plasma ultrafiltrate conductivity value displayed by the machine was entered in the personal computer (PC) conductivity kinetic model. The model output (dialysate conductivity value) was keyed into the machine. The PC conductivity kinetic model was used only during treatment B.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3
Effect of experimental treatment B on the intradialytic percentage reduction in systolic blood pressure. There was a significant smaller reduction in intradialytic systolic blood pressure values, with a maximum effect at the third hour of dialysis (23% less than during treatment A, P = ).
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

5. Figure 4
Predialysis (□) and postdialysis () body weights. There was no difference in predialysis and end-dialysis body weights between the conventional treatment A and experimental treatment B.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

6. Figure 5
Predialysis and postdialysis ultrafiltrate and dialysate conductivities. There was no difference in dialysate and predialysis () and end-dialysis (•) plasma ultrafiltrate conductivity between treatments. Symbol (*) is dialysate conductivity.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

7. Figure 6
Interdialytic load (□), dialytic removal () and sodium balance (▪). There was no difference in the estimated average sodium balance between treatments.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

8. Figure 7
Effect of experimental treatment B on the variability of end-dialysis ultrafiltrate conductivity. The difference in the within-patient SD of end-dialysis plasma ultrafiltrate conductivity between the observed and predetermined values are shown (as median values). Treatment B decreased the value of this variable by 21%. This effect was more evident in sequence 1 (26%), where the value of this variable during treatment A was higher than in sequence 2 (0.092 mS/cm vs mS/cm, respectively). Symbols are: (□) treatment A; (▪) treatment B.
Kidney International  , DOI: ( /j x)
Copyright © 1998 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions