Dergiler / Trends in pediatrics / 2021 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

The Factors Affecting The Efficiency of Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis in Children

Sayfa
86–93
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, the dialysate volume should be calculated according to the intraperitoneal pressure and dialysis should be adjusted according to the permeability properties of the peritoneal membrane.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Peritoneal dialysis is a complex and variable process.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Many factors can affect efficiency of dialysis, and relevant mortality and morbidity rates.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, the dialysate volume should be calculated according to the intraperitoneal pressure and dialysis should be adjusted according to the permeability properties of the peritoneal membrane.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: Peritoneal dialysis is a complex and variable process. Many factors can affect efficiency of dialysis, and relevant mortality and morbidity rates. Efficient dialysis is important in improving quality of life as well as reducing the morbidity and mortality rates. Dialysis fill volume, intraperitoneal pressure and ultrafiltration (UF) are important variables that determine dialysis efficiency. We aimed to investigate the factors affecting dialysis efficiency and to determine necessities to develop a more effective dialysis program. Methods: Sixteen continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients between the ages of 7 and 19 years who were followed up in the Pediatric Nephrology Department were included in the study. Patients who had peritonitis, surgical or medical complications in the last 6 months were excluded from the study. Demographic data, duration of dialysis, hemogram, urea, creatinine, albumin, glucose levels, intraperitoneal pressures, peritoneal equilibration test (PET) and Kt/Vurea test results were recorded. Results: Mean Kt /Vurea, dialysis fill volume, UF, intraperitoneal pressure, Hb and serum albumin were found as 2.5±0.93 (1.22- 4.64), 1123.4±126.86 (875-1360) ml/m2, 600.1±382.15 (85 -1375) ml, 12.9±2.77 (8.5-19) cm/H2O, 9.0±1.54 (6.3-11.8) gr/dl and 3.6±0.61 (2.45-4.8) gr/dl, respectively. A statistically significant relationship was shown between UF and Kt/Vurea (p=0.04). The mean duration of dialysis was 54±36 months. The majority of the cases had high (37.5%) and medium-high (31.25%) peritoneal permeability. High permeability was found to have a significant relationship with the duration of dialysis (p=0.04). Conclusion: Efficient peritoneal dialysis depends on preserved ultrafiltration. Therefore, the dialysate volume should be calculated according to the intraperitoneal pressure and dialysis should be adjusted according to the permeability properties of the peritoneal membrane.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Çakar, N., Şahin, İ. O., Ökdemir, D. (2022). The Factors Affecting The Efficiency of Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis in Children. Trends in pediatrics, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 86–93. https://ajindex.com/articles/598905

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Alexander SR. Peritoneal dialysis. In: Holiday MA, Barratt TM, Avner ED (eds). Pediatric Nephrology 3 rd edition. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore 1994:1339- 53
  2. Oreopoulos DG. Chronic peritonela dialysis. Cllin Nephrol. 1978;9:165-73
  3. Hansson JH, Watnick S. Update on peritoneal dialysis: Core Curriculum 2016. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67:151- 64.
  4. Baş S. Periton diyalizinde enfeksiyonlar ve tedavileri. http://www.ndthd.org.tr/images/periton-diyalizinde enfeksiyonlar ve tedavileri.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 01.02. 2020
  5. Serdengeçti K. Renal replacement therapies. In. Registry of the Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation in Turkey, Registry 2004, Eds: Erek E, Serdengeçti K, Süleymanlar G. Published by the Turkish Society of Nephrology, İstanbul-2005:33-8 6. Faller B. Continius ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Rev Prat. 1991;41:1080-4
  6. Diaz VP, Ballesteros SS, Garcia EH, et al. Intraperitoneal pressure in peritoneal dialysis. Nefrologia. 2017;37:579- 86. Epub 2017 Jul 22.
  7. Fischbach M, Terzic J, Laugel V, et al. Measurement of hydrostatic intraperitoneal pressure: a useful tool for the improvement of dialysis dose prescription. Pediatr Nephrol. 2003;18:976-80.
  8. Al-Hwiesh A, Al-Mueilo S, Saeed I, Al-Muhanna FA. Intraperitoneal pressure and intra-abdominal pressure: are they the same? Perit Dial Int. 2011;31:315-9.
  9. Leypoldt JK. Evaluation of peritoneal membrane permeability. Adv Ren Replace Ther. 1995;2:265-73.
  10. Tzamaloukas AH, Raj DS, Onime A, et al. The prescription of peritoneal dialysis. Semin Dial. 2008;21:250- 7.
  11. Prasad N, Rangaswamy D, Patel M, et al. Long-term outcomes in children on chronic continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a retrospective cohort study from a developing country. Pediatr Nephrol. 2019;34:2389- 97.
  12. Fischbach M, Warady BA. Peritoneal dialysis prescription in children; bedsides principles for optimal practice. Pediatr Nephrol. 2009;24:1633-42.
  13. Burkart JM, Piraino B, Bargman J, et al. National Kidney Foundation KDOQI Clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations. 2006 updates. Peritoneal dialysis adequacy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48 (Suppl.