Comparison of volume of blood processed on haemodialysis adequacy measurement sessions vs regular non‐adequacy sessions

• Published in: Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation Vol. 17; no. 8; pp. 1470 - 1474
• Main Authors: Brimble, Kenneth Scott, Onge, Joye St, Treleaven, Darin J., Carlisle, Euan J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.08.2002
• Subjects: Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Blood Flow Velocity; blood volume; Blood Volume - physiology; compliance; Emergency and intensive care: renal failure. Dialysis management; Female; haemodialysis adequacy; Humans; Intensive care medicine; Male; Medical sciences; Regression Analysis; Renal Dialysis - adverse effects; Renal Dialysis - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Urea - metabolism; urea reduction ratio; Human; Extrarenal dialysis; Urea; Daily; Blood volume; Hemodialysis; Adult; Hemodynamics; Clearance; Method; Comparative study; Adaptation
• ISSN: 0931-0509; 1460-2385; 1460-2385
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/17.8.1470

Background. Knowledge that adequacy measures such as the urea reduction ratio (URR) or Kt/Vurea are being measured on haemodialysis may influence the behaviour of patients or staff such that the treatment may be better on those days. This study therefore tested the hypothesis that mean volume of blood processed (VBP), utilized as a surrogate for adequacy, is higher on adequacy measurement days than non‐measurement days. Methods. Patients were identified who had been on haemodialysis over the preceding 8 months. Primary outcome was the difference in the mean VBP (in litres) on URR measurement compared with non‐URR measurement days (ΔVBPU–N). Univariate and multivariate correlates of mean VBP and ΔVBPU–N were also determined. Results. Eighty‐nine patients were identified who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Linear regression demonstrated a weak relationship between VBP and URR (r=0.24, P<0.02). This relationship was much stronger when VBP was adjusted for patient weight (mean VBP/weight; r=0.78, P<0.0001). The overall mean VBP was 87.4 l (±1.2 l) and the average ΔVBPU–N was 1.1 l (±0.3 l) (P=0.001). Twenty per cent of patients had a clinically relevant ΔVBPU–N of >3.6 l. Patients with a graft or fistula had a significantly higher ΔVBPU–N than patients with a tunnelled catheter. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that the average VBP is less on non‐URR than on URR measurement days; this difference was clinically important in >20% of patients. Univariate analysis indicated that the use of a fistula or graft correlated with a higher ΔVBPU–N. This implies that our current method of assessing dialysis adequacy does systematically overestimate the average delivered dose of dialysis in a subset of patients.