首页> 外文期刊>Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research >Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport
【24h】

Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport

机译:三种评估腹膜运输方式的PET方法的比较

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

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 (P0.001) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P0.01) 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 (P0.001) 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.
机译:腹膜平衡测试(PET)是评估水和溶质在整个腹膜中运输的最广泛方法。这项研究比较了三种方法:传统PET(t-PET),微型PET和改良PET(mod-PET)。接受腹膜透析(PD)至少三个月的非糖尿病成年人(n = 21)接受了t-PET(葡萄糖2.5%-4 h),mini-PET(葡萄糖3.86%-1 h)和mod -PET(葡萄糖3.86%-4 h)确定肌酐的透析液与血浆浓度比(D / P)和葡萄糖的透析液与基线透析液浓度比(D / D0)。使用方差分析(ANOVA),Pearson相关系数和Bland-Altman分析评估了D / P肌酐和D / D0葡萄糖的方法之间的一致性。 D / P肌酐在t-PET和mini-PET之间(P <0.001)和mod-PET和mini-PET之间(P <0.01)不同,但在t-PET和mod-PET之间没有差异(P = 0.746)。 D / P肌酐与t-PET与mod-PET的相关性显着(r = 0.387,P = 0.009),但与t-PET与mini-PET的相关性不明显(r = 0.088,P = 0.241)。 t-PET与mod-PET之间的估计偏差为±0.029(P = 0.201),t-PET与mini-PET之间的估计偏差为0.206(P <0.001)。 D / D0葡萄糖在t-PET和mod-PET之间(P = 0.003)和mod-PET与mini-PET之间(P = 0.002)不同,但在t-PET和mini-PET之间没有差异(P = 0.885)。 t-PET与mod-PET(r =?0.017,P = 0.421)或t-PET与mini-PET(r = 0.152,P = 0.609)之间的D / D0葡萄糖之间的相关性不显着。 t-PET与mod-PET之间的估计偏差为0.122(P = 0.026),而t-PET与mini-PET之间的估计偏差为0.122(P = 0.026)。 D-P肌酐在t-PET和mod-PET之间的显着相关性表明,后者是t-PET的良好替代品。 t-PET和mini-PET之间没有这种相关性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号