+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Assessing Residual Renal Function and Efficiency of Hemodialysis – an Application for Urographic Contrast Media

      Read this article at

          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.


          Background: In patients on hemodialysis with end-stage renal disease there is an increasing interest in measuring both residual renal function (RRF) and quantity and quality of dialysis because insufficient dialysis gives higher mortality. For that purpose we have measured clearances of two urographic iodine (I) contrast media (CM) with different molecular masses (iohexol 821 u and iodixanol 1,550 u). These CM are filtered through glomeruli and dialysis membranes and have higher molecular masses than urea and creatinine and might represent the dialyzability of the hypothetic uremic toxins with a molecular mass of 300–5,000 u. Methods: Thirteen patients (8 of them were anuric) immediately after hemodialysis received 15 ml iohexol (300 mg I/ml i.v.) and 2 weeks later in the same way 15 ml iodixanol (320 mg I/ml). Nine other patients (2 anuric) received CM after only one dialysis; 8 got iohexol and 1 got iodixanol. After the CM injections the iodine concentrations were measured with X-ray fluorescence in blood and, when available, urine during the following 2 days including both the start and end of the next dialysis. Eighteen patients after two dialysis sessions, 2 weeks apart, received 10 ml iohexol i.v., and a single blood sample was taken at the start of the next dialysis 2 days later to determine RRF alone. Results: In the 10 anuric patients the extrarenal clearances (mean ± SD) were 2.5 ± 1.1 and 2.7 ± 1.1 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> for iohexol and iodixanol, respectively. In patients with RRF good correlations were demonstrated between body clearance, based on two blood samples, and renal clearance of CM. Good correlations (r<sup>2</sup> = 0.853 for iohexol, r<sup>2</sup> = 0.933 for iodixanol) were noted between two-sample and single-sample body clearances. Repeated single sample iohexol clearances gave a coefficient of variation of 15%. During dialysis the clearances of iohexol and iodixanol were, respectively, 69 ± 16 and 58 ± 11 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> when calculated from a single-pool model (hemodialysis clearance of CM from plasma). A median increase (rebound) of CM concentrations in plasma 45 min dialysis was 8% for iodixanol and 18% for iohexol. When the CM concentration 45 min after dialysis was used, the clearance values were by 8–10% lower and represented the hemodialysis clearance of CM from the extracellular compartments. The dialysis eliminations of iohexol and iodixanol were similar to that of urea, measured as percentage reduction of serum levels during dialysis. Conclusions: A single injection of CM at the end of dialysis followed by a single blood sample at the start of the next dialysis gives total body clearance, i.e., an estimation of the RRF. An additional blood sample at the end of the next dialysis gives dialysis efficiency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The urea reduction ratio and serum albumin concentration as predictors of mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

          Among patients with end-stage renal disease who are treated with hemodialysis, solute clearance during dialysis and nutritional adequacy are determinants of mortality. We determined the effects of reductions in blood urea nitrogen concentrations during dialysis and changes in serum albumin concentrations, as an indicator of nutritional status, on mortality in a large group of patients treated with hemodialysis. We analyzed retrospectively the demographic characteristics, mortality rate, duration of hemodialysis, serum albumin concentration, and urea reduction ratio (defined as the percent reduction in blood urea nitrogen concentration during a single dialysis treatment) in 13,473 patients treated from October 1, 1990, through March 31, 1991. The risk of death was determined as a function of the urea reduction ratio and serum albumin concentration. As compared with patients with urea reduction ratios of 65 to 69 percent, patients with values below 60 percent had a higher risk of death during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.28 for urea reduction ratios of 55 to 59 percent and 1.39 for ratios below 55 percent). Fifty-five percent of the patients had urea reduction ratios below 60 percent. The duration of dialysis was not predictive of mortality. The serum albumin concentration was a more powerful (21 times greater) predictor of death than the urea reduction ratio, and 60 percent of the patients had serum albumin concentrations predictive of an increased risk of death (values below 4.0 g per deciliter). The odds ratio for death was 1.48 for serum albumin concentrations of 3.5 to 3.9 g per deciliter and 3.13 for concentrations of 3.0 to 3.4 g per deciliter. Diabetic patients had lower serum albumin concentrations and urea reduction ratios than nondiabetic patients. Low urea reduction ratios during dialysis are associated with increased odds ratios for death. These risks are worsened by inadequate nutrition.

            Author and article information

            S. Karger AG
            August 2000
            28 July 2000
            : 85
            : 4
            : 324-333
            Departments of aVascular and Renal Diseases, bDiagnostic Radiology and cExperimental Research, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, dDiatron Ltd., Svedala, and eDepartment of Internal Medicine, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden
            45682 Nephron 2000;85:324–333
            © 2000 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: 7, Tables: 1, References: 36, Pages: 10
            Self URI (application/pdf):
            Original Paper


            Comment on this article