Influencia del volumen peritoneal residual en los resultados de la prueba de equilibrio peritoneal. Estudio prospectivo

BackgroundCategorization of the capacity of ultrafiltration during a peritoneal equilibration test (PET) is a usual step during the monitoring of peritoneal transport characteristics of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Quantifying the peritoneal residual volume (Vr) after the dwell preceding the PET (Vrpre) and at the end of the test (Vrpost) could help to improve the accuracy of the estimation of this variable.MethodFollowing a prospective design, we calculated Vrpre and Vrpost in 116 patients, incident or prevalent on DP, who underwent one or two (n = 27) PET with 3.86/4.25% glucose-based PD solutions and complete drainage at 60 min. We evaluated the consistency of Vr by comparing Vrpre and Vrpost, as also these two parameters in repeated tests. We scrutinized potential associations between demographic and clinical factors, on one side, and the amount of Vr on the other, as also the impact of correcting ultrafiltration during PET for Vr on the categorization of the capacity of ultrafiltration.ResultsAs a mean, Vrpost was larger than Vrpre. Consequently, correction of ultrafiltration for Vr resulted in significantly higher values than those obtained according to the standard procedure (494 vs 449 mL, p < 0.0005). We disclosed marked inconsistencies for different estimations of Vr in the same patients (Vrpre vs Vrpost and repeated PET studies). Moreover, no demographic or clinical variable was able to predict the amount of Vr. We observed a significant deviation (>200 mL) between both methods of estimation of the capacity of utrafiltration in only 12.9% of the patients. However, 21.1% of the patients categorized as cases of ultrafiltration failure according to the standard procedure did not maintain this condition after correction for Vr.ConclusionsCorrection for Vr of the capacity of ultrafiltration during a PET carries, as a mean, a minor impact on the categorization of this parameter. However, the results of the test can be significantly affected in 12.9% of the cases. We have been unable to detect demographic or clinical predictors of Vr, which suggests a random component for the mechanics of single peritoneal exchanges. We suggest that Vr should be estimated at the time of categorizing the capacity of ultrafiltration, whenever inconsistencies during serial PET studies are detected.     

Extracorporeal veno-venous ultrafiltration in congestive heart failure: What’s the state of the art? A mini-review

Hospitalizations for heart failure exceed 1 million per year in both the United States and Europe and more than 90% are due to symptoms and signs of fluid overload. Rates of rehospitalizations or emergency department visit at 60 days are remarkable regardless of whether loop diuretics were administered at low vs high doses or by bolus injection vs continuous infusion. Ultrafiltration (UF) has been considered a promising alternative to stepped diuretic therapy and it consists in the mechanical, adjustable removal of iso-tonic plasma water across a semipermeable membrane with the application of hydrostatic pressure gradient generated by a pump. Fluid removal with ultrafiltration presents several advantages such as elimination of higher amount of sodium with less neurohormonal activation. However, the conflicting results from UF studies highlight that patient selection and fluid removal targets are not completely understood. The best way to assess fluid status and therefore establish the fluid removal target is also still a matter of debate. Herein, we provide an up-to-date systematic review about the role of ultrafiltration among patients with fluid overload and its gaps in daily practice.