Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 9, Supplement 1, pp S2–S8 | Cite as

On-line monitoring of the delivery of the hemodialysis prescription

  • Prakash R. Keshaviah
  • James P. Ebben
  • Paul F. Emerson
Article

Abstract

The BioStat 1000 is a new device which employs dialysate-based urea kinetics to calculate the dose of dialysis (Kt/V) based on a two-pool model and protein catabolic rate (PCR). Previous methods relying on blood sampling techniques were subject to error and difficult to implement. This paper describes the features of the Biostat and the results of the first clinical validation study with an early prototype. The BioStat was found to compare favorably with the reference method of direct dialysate quantification (mDDQ) which had been modified to obtain a “two-pool” Kt/V. In 31 patients no significant difference was found between mean Kt/V from the mDDQ and the mean Kt/V from the BioStat (1.35±0.33 versus 1.38±0.36, respectively). The PCR was also not significantly different (53.4±18.5 g/day versus 51.8±16 g/day, respectively). The BioStat was demonstrated to be a convenient method producing reliable results.

Key words

Hemodialysis prescription On-line monitoring 

References

  1. 1.
    Farrell PC (1988) Dialysis kinetics. ASAIO Primers in Artificial Organs 4: 1–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Depner TA (1991) Prescribing hemodialysis: a guide to urea modeling, 1st edn. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotch F (1990) Kinetic modeling in hemodialysis. In: Nissenson A, Fine R, Gentile D (eds) Clinical dialysis, 2nd edn. Appleton and Lange, Norwalk, pp 118–146Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sargent JA, Gotch FA (1989) Principles and biophysics of dialysis. In: Maher J (ed) Replacement of renal function by dialysis, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 87–143Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilstrup K, Hanson G, Shapiro W, Keshaviah P (1985) Examining the foundations of urea kinetics. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 31: 164–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daugirdas JT (1993) Second generation logarithmic estimates of single-pool variable volume Kt/V: an analysis of Error. J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 1205–1213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barth R (1988) Direct calculation of KT/V: a simplified approach to monitoring of hemodialysis. Nephron 50: 191–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frost T, Kerr D (1977) Kinetics of hemodialysis: a theoretical study of the removal of solutes in chronic renal failure compared to normal health. Kidney Int 12: 41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delmez JA, Windus DW (1992) Hemodialysis prescription and delivery in a metropolitan community. The St. Louis Nephrology Study Group. Kidney Int 41: 1023–1028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Held P, Levin N, Bovbjerg R, Pauly MV, Diamond LH (1991) Mortality and duration of hemodialysis treatment. JAMA 265: 871–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gotch F, Yarian S, Keen M (1990) A kinetic survey of US hemodialysis prescriptions. Am J Kidney Dis 15: 511–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sargent J (1990) Shortfalls in the delivery of dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 15: 500–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lowrie E, Teehan B (1983) Principles of prescribing dialysis therapy: implementing recommendations from the NCDS. Kidney Int 23: S113-S122Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowrie E, Laird N, Parker T, Sargent JA (1981) Effect of the hemodialysis prescription on patient morbidity. N Engl J Med 305: 1176–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Held P, Brunner F, Odaka M, Garcia JR, Port FK, Gaylin DS (1990) Five year survival for end-stage renal disease patients in the United States, Europe and Japan, 1982–1987. Am J Kidney Dis 15: 451–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hull A, Parker T (1990) Introduction and summary: Proceedings from the Morbidity, Mortality and Prescription of Dialysis Symposium, Dallas, Texas, 15–17 September, 1989. Am J Kidney Dis 15: 375–383Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bosticardo G, Alloatti S, Avalle U, et al. (1993) Single-pool urea kinetic model (UKM) and simplified formulas: comparison of results (abstract) J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 335Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borah MF, Schoenfeld PY, Gotch FA, Sargent JA, Wolfsen M, Humphreys MH (1978) Nitrogen balance during intermittent dialysis therapy of uremia. Kidney Int 14: 491–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keshaviah P, Star R (1994) A new approach to dialysis quantification: an adequacy index based on solute removal. Semin Dial 7: 85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gotch F, Sargent J (1985) A mechanistic analysis of the National Cooperative Dialysis Study (NCDS). Kidney Int 28: 526–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malchesky P, Ellis P, Nosse C, et al. (1982) Direct quantification of dialysis. Dial Transplant 11: 42–49Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin L (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45: 255–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Depner T (1994) Assessing adequacy of hemodialysis: urea modeling. Kidney Int 45: 1522–1535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash R. Keshaviah
    • 1
  • James P. Ebben
    • 2
  • Paul F. Emerson
    • 1
  1. 1.Baxter Clinical EngineeringBaxter Healthcare CorporationMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Baxter Clinical EngineeringMinneapolis Medical Research FoundationMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations