The article suggests a novel method for quantitative determination of optimal dry weight in dialysis patient based on their extracellular volume (ECV) to total body water (TBW) ratio and its relation to age. Values of ECV and TBW are evaluated by means of whole body multifrequency bioimpedometry. In an effort to find a suitable marker of hydration status in an individual from bioimpedance data, significant correlation has been found between ECV/TBW ratio and age in health. Assuming that all excess fluid in dialysis patients is stored exclusively in ECV and that distribution of their TBW at the state of optimal dry weight corresponds to that of a healthy person of the same age, the pre-dialysis ECV/TBW could be used for quantitative determination of optimal dry weight and/or of the ultrafiltration to reach this weight. Practical bioimpedance measurement of ECV/TBW in a group of dialysis patients both pre- and post-dialysis confirmed both above assumptions, i.e. nearly exclusively extracellular origin of ultrafiltration as well as normalisation of the ECV/TBW ratio towards the end of dialysis. Supporting evidence of increasing ECV/TBW value with age was also found in literature. Although the suggested method needs detailed analysis of possible disturbing factors (ethnic “specificity” of the reference ECV/TBW vs. age characteristics in health, possible difference in “biological” and “physical” age of dialysis patient and others), the article is published at this early stage to enable wider testing of the proposed novel method by different investigators.

Measurement of vascular access flow (QVA) has been suggested as a method of choice for vascular access quality (VAQ) monitoring. Besides traditional duplex Doppler, a number of bedside methods based mostly on the Krivitski principle of QVA evaluation from recirculation at reversed needles (RX), have been developed. This work compares ultrasonic dilution (UD), taken as a reference, HD01, Transonic Systems; duplex Doppler (DD); thermodilution (TD), BTM, Fresenius; optodilutional RX measurement (ORX), Critline III, R-mode, HemaMetrics; direct optodilutional QVA evaluation from jumpwise changes in ultrafiltration rate at both normal and reversed needles connection (OABF), Critline III, ABF-mode; and direct transcutaneous optodilutional QVA evaluation (TQA), Critline III TQA. Firstly, reproducibility of each method was assessed by duplicate measurement at unchanged conditions. This was followed by paired measurement with each method performed at controlled change in relevant measurement condition (two different extracorporeal blood flows in UD and TD, changed sensor position in TQA). Finally paired measurements by each method and the reference method performed at identical conditions were evaluated to assess accuracy of each method. The simple Krivitski formula QVA= QB(1–RX)/RX was used wherever manual QVA calculation was needed. Very high reproducibility was seen in UD, both for measurement at the same extra corporeal blood flow (QB) (correlation coefficient of duplicate measurement r= 0.9702, n= 58) and for measurement at two different QB (r= 0.9735, n= 24), justifying its current status of a reference method in QVA evaluation. Slightly lower reproducibility of TD measurement at the same QB (r= 0.9197, n= 40) and at two different QB (r= 0.8508, n= 168) can be easily overcome by duplicate measurement with averaging. High correlation of TD vs. UD (r= 0.9543, n= 54) makes TD a viable clinical alternative in QVA evaluation. Consistently different QVA obtained at two different QB should prompt closer investigation of anatomical conditions of the access. Use of the simple Krivitski formula in TD (which measures total recirculation, i.e. sum of access recirculation and cardiopulmonary recirculation) brings about underestimation of QVA, which progressively increases from QVA of about 600 mL/min up. Good correlation, although with significant scatter (r= 0.8691, n= 27) was found between the DD-and UD-based QVA. By far the worst reproducibility at the same QB from among the investigated methods was found in ORX (0.6430, n= 23). Also the correlation of ORX vs. UD was lower than in other methods (r= 0.702, n=33) and general overestimation of QVA by about 25% was noted. Correlation of OABF vs. UD (r= 0.6957, n= 26) was slightly better than that of ORX and it gave less overestimated values. The TQA method showed very high reproducibility (r= 0.9712, n= 85), however only for unchanged sensor position. Correlation of QVA measured at two different sensor positions was much worse (r= 0.7255, n= 22). Correspondence of TQA vs. UD was s...

The article discusses the issue of suitable parameters (pressures, recirculation and access flow) to assess hemodialysis vascular access quality (VAQ), available methods to measure those parameters and the setup of the entire VAQ surveillance system (VAQS) in a dialysis facility. Special attention is paid to factors which need some standardization to enable evaluation of VAQ trends in an individual as well as comparison of data from different patients and different dialysis facilities. The discussed procedures are documented with the authors’ own measurement results and the results of the VAQS implemented in their unit. Both dynamic and static pressures exhibit insufficient sensitivity in detecting stenoses in native arteriovenous fistulas. Access recirculation is a late finding because with its non-zero value dialysis quality is already compromised. Timely and reliable detection of a deteriorating access condition is enabled by access flow (QVA) only. No standardization is needed in extracorporeal blood flow used in QVA evaluation by ultrasonic dilution. Multiple measurements may increase the reliability of thermodilutional measurements and are a must in optodilutional ones. Timing of the measurement during dialysis should be standardized. Measurement frequency should take into account access type, QVA value and access history. Shortened intervals are needed in the immediate post-intervention period with regard to risk of re-stenosis incidence and strongly nonlinear QVA decreases in such cases. A significant shift-over from surgical interventions to balloon angioplasties is to be expected with the introduction of a VAQS, and appropriate measures must be taken to ensure their quick availability.

Quotidian or "daily" hemodialysis (DHD) is practiced in widely differing schedules. Yet all those schedules are reported to significantly ameliorate clinical outcome of patients. It is, however, not clear what is the actual cause of this amelioration. Rational possibilities include increased overall dialysis dose and increased weekly time. Conventional mathematical approaches (Kt/V(urea) concept, equivalent renal clearance) cannot be used to study those issues because they do not consider number of dialysis per week and thus ignore the issue of treatment schedule "unphysiology." The time average concentration/time average deviation (TAC/TAD) concept may well be used to visualize impact of treatment schedule on both plasma urea profile statics (TAC) and dynamics (TAD). The concept may further help to stratify studies for elucidation of the key factors of clinical outcome improvement seen on DHD. Actual physiologic mechanisms responsible for this improvement are to be sought among those with having derivative component (i.e., reacting to the rate of a change rather than to the magnitude of the change). It should, however, be kept in mind that the TAC/TAD concept is able to assess unphysiology of a treatment schedule, not unphysiology of a single treatment session.

Measurement of vascular access flow (QVA) has been suggested as a method of choice for vascular access quality (VAQ) monitoring. Besides traditional duplex Doppler, a number of bedside methods based mostly on the Krivitski principle of QVA evaluation from recirculation at reversed needles (RX), have been developed. This work compares ultrasonic dilution (UD), taken as a reference, HD01, Transonic Systems; duplex Doppler (DD); thermodilution (TD), BTM, Fresenius; optodilutional RX measurement (ORX), Critline III, R-mode, HemaMetrics; direct optodilutional QVA evaluation from jumpwise changes in ultrafiltration rate at both normal and reversed needles connection (OABF), Critline III, ABF-mode; and direct transcutaneous optodilutional QVA evaluation (TQA), Critline III TQA. Firstly, reproducibility of each method was assessed by duplicate measurement at unchanged conditions. This was followed by paired measurement with each method performed at controlled change in relevant measurement condition (two different extracorporeal blood flows in UD and TD, changed sensor position in TQA). Finally paired measurements by each method and the reference method performed at identical conditions were evaluated to assess accuracy of each method. The simple Krivitski formula QVA= QB(1-RX)/RX was used wherever manual QVA calculation was needed. Very high reproducibility was seen in UD, both for measurement at the same extra corporeal blood flow (QB) (correlation coefficient of duplicate measurement r= 0.9702, n= 58) and for measurement at two different QB (r= 0.9735, n= 24), justifying its current status of a reference method in QVA evaluation. Slightly lower reproducibility of TD measurement at the same QB (r= 0.9197, n= 40) and at two different QB (r= 0.8508, n= 168) can be easily overcome by duplicate measurement with averaging. High correlation of TD vs. UD (r= 0.9543, n= 54) makes TD a viable clinical alternative in QVA evaluation. Consistently different QVA obtained at two different QB should prompt closer investigation of anatomical conditions of the access. Use of the simple Krivitski formula in TD (which measures total recirculation, i.e. sum of access recirculation and cardiopulmonary recirculation) brings about underestimation of QVA, which progressively increases from QVA of about 600 ml/min up. Good correlation, although with significant scatter (r= 0.8691, n= 27) was found between the DD- and UD-based QVA. By far the worst reproducibility at the same QB from among the investigated methods was found in ORX (0.6430, n= 23). Also the correlation of ORX vs. UD was lower than in other methods (r= 0.702, n=33) and general overestimation of QVA by about 25% was noted. Correlation of OABF vs. UD (r= 0.6957, n= 26) was slightly better than that of ORX and it gave less overestimated values. The TQA method showed very high reproducibility (r= 0.9712, n= 85), however only for unchanged sensor position. Correlation of QVA measured at two different sensor positions was much worse (r= 0.7255, n= 22). Correspondence of TQA vs. UD was ...