Abstract
From a review of the literature regarding kinetic models used for assessing the adequacy of hemodialysis, no definite conclusions can be drawn as to whether the classical urea kinetic model (UKM) or modified direct dialysis quantification (mDDQ) is more reliable. We compared mDDQ with classical UKM and with a modified UKM that employs an equilibrated urea value. From the theoretical viewpoint, no substantial conflict is found between the two models as regards the dialysis dose, if urea rebound is considered. From the practical viewpoint, in our opinion direct quantification lends itself better for experimental purposes whereas for routine Kt/V evaluation UKM is easier and accurate enough, provided that rebound is taken into account.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1996 S. Karger AG, Basel
1996
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
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.
You do not currently have access to this content.
