Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Use of Fluoride as a Marker Solute to Quantify the Current Effective Delivered Dose in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An “in vitro” Study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The current effective delivered dose is a quality indicator for continuous renal replacement therapy. Its periodic assessment might enable physicians to deliver personalised treatments. Yet, its quantification as by extracorporeal urea clearance (Cl) is cumbersome and thus often neglected in routine practice. The aim of this in vitro study is to demonstrate the non-inferior effectiveness of assessing the current effective delivered dose using a simpler, cheaper and faster approach based on measurement of fluoride rather than urea extracorporeal Cl. Methods: We compared urea and fluoride removal in 3 post-dilution continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) and 3 continuous veno-venous haemodialysis (CVVHD) in vitro experimental models. Experiments ran for 180 min, using 3 L of human blood, heparin anticoagulation and a machine dose of 30 mL/kg/h. Urea and fluoride were measured in the inflow, outflow and effluent lines to compare sieving coefficients (SC), saturation coefficients (SA) and transmembrane Cls. Results: In CVVH, the median SC values were 1.06 (1.02–1.07) and 1.02 (1.01–1.04) for fluoride and urea, respectively (discrepancy of 4.3%), while transmembrane convective Cls were 31.28 (30.01–31.31) mL/kg/h and 30.30 (29–31.85) mL/kg/h (discrepancy of 3.13%), respectively. In CVVHD, the median SA values were 1.01 (0.96–1.02) and 1 (0.95–1.01) for fluoride and urea, respectively (discrepancy of 1.6%), while transmembrane dialytic Cls were 30.26 (29.52–31.32) mL/kg/h and 31.16 (30–31.75) mL/kg/h (discrepancy of –2.97%), respectively. Conclusion: Fluoride transmembrane removal was close to that observed with urea, in terms of SC, SA and transmembrane Cl. Fluoride seems as much accurate as urea in assessing the current effective delivered dose during both CVVH and CVVHD and might therefore be adopted for dose measurement. Besides accuracy, fluoride bedside assessment could present many advantages over urea, particularly in terms of availability, costs, time requirement and rapidity of assessment.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          BPU
          Blood Purif
          10.1159/issn.0253-5068
          Blood Purification
          S. Karger AG
          0253-5068
          1421-9735
          2020
          November 2020
          20 March 2020
          : 49
          : 6
          : 685-691
          Affiliations
          aDepartment of Health Sciences, Section of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
          bDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
          cInternational Renal Research Institute of Vicenza (IRRIV), Vicenza, Italy
          Author notes
          *Gianluca Villa, Department of Health Sciences, Section of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini, 6, IT–50139 Florence (Italy), E-Mail gianluca.villa@unifi.it
          Article
          507013 Blood Purif 2020;49:685–691
          10.1159/000507013
          32200385
          © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 7
          Categories
          Research Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article