Comparison of three pet methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorRomani R.F.
dc.contributor.authorWaniewski J.
dc.contributor.authorKruger L.
dc.contributor.authorLindholm B.
dc.contributor.authorNascimento M.M.
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-12T23:55:04Z
dc.date.available2024-03-12T23:55:04Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstract© 2019, Associacao Brasileira de Divulgacao Cientifica. All rights reserved.The peritoneal equilibration test (PET) is the most widespread method for assessing water and solute transport across the peritoneal membrane. This study compared three methods: traditional PET (t-PET), mini-PET, and modified PET (mod-PET). Non-diabetic adults (n=21) who had been on peritoneal dialysis (PD) for at least three months underwent t-PET (glucose 2.5%-4 h), mini-PET (glucose 3.86%-1 h), and mod-PET (glucose 3.86%-4 h) to determine dialysate-to-plasma concentration ratio (D/P) for creatinine and dialysate-to-baseline dialysate concentration ratio (D/D0) for glucose. Agreement between methods regarding D/P creatinine and D/D0 glucose was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis. D/P creatinine differed between t-PET and mini-PET (Po0.001) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (Po0.01) but not between t-PET and mod-PET (P=0.746). The correlation of D/P creatinine with t-PET vs mod-PET was significant (r=0.387, P=0.009) but not that of t-PET vs mini-PET (r=0.088, P=0.241). Estimated bias was –0.029 (P=0.201) between t-PET and mod-PET, and 0.206 (Po0.001) between t-PET and mini-PET. D/D0 glucose differed between t-PET and mod-PET (P=0.003) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P=0.002) but not between t-PET and mini-PET (P=0.885). The correlations of D/D0 glucose in t-PET vs mod-PET (r=–0.017, P=0.421) or t-PET vs mini-PET (r=0.152, P=0.609) were not significant. Estimated bias was 0.122 (P=0.026) between t-PET and mod-PET, and 0.122 (P=0.026) between t-PET and mini-PET. The significant correlation of D/P creatinine between t-PET and mod-PET suggested that the latter is a good alternative to t-PET. There was no such correlation between t-PET and mini-PET.
dc.description.issuenumber8
dc.description.volume52
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/1414-431x20198596
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.mackenzie.br/handle/10899/35370
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
dc.rightsAcesso Aberto
dc.subject.otherlanguageDialysis adequacy
dc.subject.otherlanguagePeritoneal dialysis
dc.subject.otherlanguagePeritoneal equilibration test
dc.subject.otherlanguagePeritoneal membrane
dc.subject.otherlanguagePeritoneal solute transport
dc.titleComparison of three pet methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport
dc.typeArtigo
local.scopus.citations5
local.scopus.eid2-s2.0-85071188368
local.scopus.subjectBiological Transport
local.scopus.subjectCreatinine
local.scopus.subjectFemale
local.scopus.subjectGlucose
local.scopus.subjectHumans
local.scopus.subjectKidney Failure, Chronic
local.scopus.subjectMale
local.scopus.subjectMiddle Aged
local.scopus.subjectPeritoneal Dialysis
local.scopus.subjectPeritoneum
local.scopus.updated2024-05-01
local.scopus.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85071188368&origin=inward
Arquivos
Coleções
Artigos de periódico