Cross-sectional cohort study on residual renal function on hemodyálisis patients Hospital de San José. Bogotá DC, Colombia

Función renal residual en hemodiálisis: estudio de corte transversal hospital de San José. Bogotá DC, Colombia

Article Sidebar


PDF (Español (España)) FLIP

How to Cite
Martínez, M. E., Alba, M. J., Cifuentes, D. M., Niño, I. del P., Pedraza, L. D., Ramfrez, L. C., Rodríguez, E., & Tovar, K. J. (2012). Cross-sectional cohort study on residual renal function on hemodyálisis patients Hospital de San José. Bogotá DC, Colombia. Journal of Medicine and Surgery Repertoire, 21(3), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.31260/RepertMedCir.v21.n3.2012.815
Published: Sep 1, 2012
Doi
https://doi.org/10.31260/RepertMedCir.v21.n3.2012.815
Issue
Vol. 21 No. 3 (2012): July - September
Section
Research Article
License terms

   

Main Article Content

María Elvira Martínez
Magda Jeannette Alba
Diana Marcela Cifuentes
Isabel del Pilar Niño
Luz Dary Pedraza
Liliana Carolina Ramfrez
Eylen Rodríguez
Kennith Johana Tovar

Abstract

Residual renal function (RRF) preservation has proven to be an independent predictor of survival in peritoneal dialysis patients. Little information exists on its impact on hemodyalisis (HD). Objective: to describe RRF prevalence in chronic HD patients. Method: cross-sectional study conducted on June 2010. RRF was defined as a urine volume >100 mi during the long inter-dialysis interval. The glomerular filtration rate was calculated as the mean urea to creatinine clearance ratio. The statistic analysis was performed using STATA 10. Results: the study included 121 patients, mean age 58.3 years (SD 14.6), 66.9% men; 47.9 had preserved RRF, the mean time on HD was 52 months (IQR 16-101); 8.4% patients had received HD during more than five years and showed a median urine volume of 750 mi (IQR 400-1300). Weight gain in the inter-dialysis period was smaller in patients with preserved RRF (24.1 % vs. 46.7% with unpreserved RRF). Patients with preserved RRF required less ultrafiltration, had few hypotension episodes (22.4% vs. 27%) and a low incidence of hyperkalemia (20.7% vs. 30.1%) and hyperphosphatemia (51.7% vs. 58.7%). Conclusion: although these results are provided by a cross-sectional study it allows showing the hemodynamic and metabolic benefits furnished by a preserved RRF. Adequate urine volumes were documented in some patients receiving HD for a prolonged period of time. RRF preservation and urinary measuring are emphasized in patients on HD.

Keywords:

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

References

1. Peri J, Bargman JM. The Importance of Residual Kidney Function for Patients on Dialysis: A Critica] Review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009 Jun; 53(6):1068-8l.
2. Maiorca R, Brunori G, Zubani R, Cancarini GC, Manili L, Camerini C, et al. Predictive value of dialysis adequacy and nutritional indices for mortality and morbidity in CAPO and HD patients. A longitudinal study. Nephrol Dial Trans­ plant. 1995 Dec;l 0(12):2295-305.
3. Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN. Relative contribution of residual re­ nal function and peritoneaJ clearance lo adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA Study. J Am SocNephrol. 2001 Oct;l 2(10):2158-62.
4. Ng TG, Johnson DW, Hawley CM. Is il time lo revisit residual renal function in haemodialysis?. Nephrology. 2007;12(3):209-17.
5. Shemin D, Bostom AG, Laliberty P, Dworkin LD. Residual renal function and mortality risk in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;38(1):85-90.
6. Termorshuizen F, Dekker FW, van Manen JG, Korevaar JC, Boeschoten EW, Krediel RT. Relative Contribution of Residual Renal Function and Different Measures of Adequacy to Survival in Hemodialysis Patients: An analysis of the Netherlands Cooperative Study on lhe Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD)-2. J Am SocNephrol. 2004 Apr;l5(4):1061-70.
7. HemodialysisAdequacy2006 Work Group. Clinical Practice Guidelines for HemodiaJysis Adequacy, Update 2006. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006 Jul;48Suppl l:S2-90.
8. Daugirdas JT. Patbophysiology of dialysis hypotension: An update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Oct;38(4 Suppl 4):Sl 1-7.
9. Kuan Y, Hossain M, Surman J, El Nahas AM, Haylor J. GFR prediction using the MDRD and Cockcrofl and Gault equations in patients with end-stage renal disease. Neph.rol Dial Transplant. 2005 Nov; 20(11):2394-401.
10. Taskapan H, Theodoros P, Tam P, Bargman J, Oreopoulos D. Glomerular filtra­ tion rate (GFR) estimated from serum creatinine predicts total (urine and perito­ neal) creatinine clearance in patients on peritoneal dialysis. IntUrolNephrol. 201O Dec;42(4):1085-92.
11. Colombia. Ministerio de la Protección Social, Fedesalud. Guía para el manejo de la Enfermedad Renal Crónica[monografía en Internet]. Bogotá: Fedesalud; 2005. fcitado Jun 22 2012]. Disponible en: http://www.saludcolombia.com/actual/do­ cumentos/GUIA%20DE%20ATENCION%20ERC%20version%20oficial.pdf
12. Rodriguez-lturbe B, Bellorin-Font E. End-stage renal disease prevention strate­ gies in Latin America. Kidney Int. 2005;68(S98):S30-S6.
13. Milutinovic J, Cutler RE, Hoover P, Meijsen B, Scribner BH. Measurement of residual glomerular filtration rate in the patient receiving repetitive hemodialysis. Kidney lnt. 1975;8(3):185-90. Epub 1975/09/01.
14. Rodríguez Benitez PG, Gómez Campdera FJ. Importancia de la funcion renal residuaí en pacientes en hemodiálisis. Nefrología. 2002; 22(2): 98-103.
15. Snyder JJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Vonesh EF, Collins AJ. Hemoglobin levels and erythropoietin doses in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients in the United States. J Am SocNephrol. 2004 Jan;15(1):174-9.
16. Kaysen GA. Biological basis of hypoalbuminemia in ESRD. J Am SocNephrol. 1998 Dec;9(12):2368-76.
17. Vogt L. Laverman GD, Navis G. Time for a comeback of NSAIDs in proteinuric chronic kidney disease?. Neth J Med. 2010 Dec;68(12):400-7.

Citado por