EFFECT OF DIALYSATE TEMPERATURE ON CENTRAL HEMODYNAMICS AND UREA KINETICS

Citation
Aw. Yu et al., EFFECT OF DIALYSATE TEMPERATURE ON CENTRAL HEMODYNAMICS AND UREA KINETICS, Kidney international, 48(1), 1995, pp. 237-243
Citations number
33
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00852538
Volume
48
Issue
1
Year of publication
1995
Pages
237 - 243
Database
ISI
SICI code
0085-2538(1995)48:1<237:EODTOC>2.0.ZU;2-A
Abstract
Use of cool dialysate is associated with increased intradialytic blood pressure, but the hemodynamic mechanism is unknown. Whether changes i n dialysate temperature affect muscle blood flow, which may the alter the degree of urea compartmentalization, also is unknown. We measured hemodynamics and blood and dialysate-side urea kinetic indices in nine hemodialysis patients during two cool (35.0 degrees C) versus two war m (37.5 degrees C) dialysate treatments. The % change in mean arterial pressure was different when using the cool (+6.5 +/- 9.7 mm Hg) versu s the warm (-13.4 +/- 3.6) dialysate (P < 0.01), despite comparable am ounts of fluid removal. Percent changes in cardiac output were similar with the two dialysates, and thus the blood pressure effect was due p rimarily to changes in total peripheral resistance (%Delta TPR, cool 26 +/- 13.6, warm +8.6 +/- 14.5; P < 0.02). During cool dialysate use tympanic membrane: temperature changed by -0.51 +/- 0.23 degrees C, wh ereas body temperature increased by 0.52 +/- 0.14 degrees C during use of warm dialysate. Measured urea recovery normalized to the predialys is urea nitrogen concentration was similar with the two treatments: co ol 31.3 +/- 0.039 liter(-1); warm 29.7 +/- 0.021; P = NS. In a second study, post-dialysis urea rebound values from 15 seconds to 30 minutes , expressed as the percent of the post-dialysis SUN, were similar afte r the two treatments: cool 11.79 +/- 1.4; warm 12.21 +/- 2.27, P = NS. The results suggest that increased blood pressure associated with use of cool dialysate is due to an increased TPR, and that this alteratio n in hemodynamics has no clinically important effects on either the am ount of urea removal or the extent of post-dialysis urea rebound.