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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Romani, RF., Waniewski, J., Kruger, L., Lindholm, B., Nascimento, M.M.
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