Cargando…
Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport
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 dialy...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6686276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31389491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198596 |
_version_ | 1783442528299646976 |
---|---|
author | Romani, RF. Waniewski, J. Kruger, L. Lindholm, B. Nascimento, M.M. |
author_facet | Romani, RF. Waniewski, J. Kruger, L. Lindholm, B. Nascimento, M.M. |
author_sort | Romani, RF. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 (P<0.001) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P<0.01) 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 (P<0.001) 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6686276 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66862762019-08-28 Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport Romani, RF. Waniewski, J. Kruger, L. Lindholm, B. Nascimento, M.M. Braz J Med Biol Res Research Article 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 (P<0.001) and between mod-PET and mini-PET (P<0.01) 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 (P<0.001) 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. Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica 2019-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6686276/ /pubmed/31389491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198596 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Romani, RF. Waniewski, J. Kruger, L. Lindholm, B. Nascimento, M.M. Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title | Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title_full | Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title_fullStr | Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title_short | Comparison of three PET methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
title_sort | comparison of three pet methods to assess peritoneal membrane transport |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6686276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31389491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198596 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT romanirf comparisonofthreepetmethodstoassessperitonealmembranetransport AT waniewskij comparisonofthreepetmethodstoassessperitonealmembranetransport AT krugerl comparisonofthreepetmethodstoassessperitonealmembranetransport AT lindholmb comparisonofthreepetmethodstoassessperitonealmembranetransport AT nascimentomm comparisonofthreepetmethodstoassessperitonealmembranetransport |