Tehran University Medical Journal (Mar 2023)
Evaluation and comparison of statistical models of hemodialysis adequacy in hemodialysis patients in two groups (fistula and permanent catheter) in Arak dialysis center
Abstract
Background: Adequacy of dialysis is a very important issue in dialysis patients, so comparing the adequacy of dialysis in different dialysis methods is very important. Therefore, due to the fact that the number of people undergoing dialysis through fistulas and catheters varies in different centers, and depending on different centers, there is a possibility of decreasing or increasing the adequacy of dialysis, so we decided to do this comparison in Arak support center. Methods: In this analytical-cross-sectional study, the dialysis patients of Hami Arak Center from April 2019 to September 2019 were divided into two groups (the first group with permanent catheter, the second group with arteriovenous fistula) based on vascular access. The both groups were matched in terms of age, sex, weight, pump speed, filter size and also the duration of dialysis. All patients were dialyzed with the same type of dialysis machine, and the duration of hemodialysis for all samples was 4 hours in each session. To confirm the reliability of the device, it was calibrated before each use and the same setting was used for all samples. The blood samples were taken from the arterial route before dialysis and starting the dilution with heparin or normal saline. Statistical models of dialysis adequacy of patients in two groups were measured using the Kt/V criterion, SPSS and AMOS data analysis was performed. Results: In the analysis of covariance of BUN before dialysis, there is a statistically significant difference in the studied groups (P<0.05), also in the UF and URR variables, dialysis time and the number of times of dialysis in three consecutive repetitions, there is a statistically significant difference in the studied groups. (dime fistula and catheter) are not present (P<0.05). Conclusion: In this study, during repeated repetitions, 22% of the dialysis adequacy in the two groups did not have good adequacy, and 78% of the patients in the two groups had appropriate dialysis adequacy.
