Urea kinetic modeling (UKM) by a two-sample method (UKM2) was compared with the classical three-sample method (UKM3) and direct quantification. Assuming the patient to be in a weekly steady state and using an approximate treatment schedule, UKM2 can compute urea generation rate (G), distribution volume (V), Kt/V, and normalized protein catabolic rate (NPCR). Twenty-three stable patients were examined. The results obtained by UKM2 and UKM3 differed little (G -4.2%, V -1.0%, Kt/V 0.9%, NPCR -2.7%), and the correlations between them were high (r > or = 0.96). The differences between UKM2 and direct quantification were greater, but also highly correlated. G determined midweekly by UKM2 was highly correlated with G found directly from 1-week collection of dialysate and urine (r = 0.96). Repeating analysis over a 5-week period, the results obtained by UKM2 varied no more than those obtained by UKM3 (around 8% for all four kinetic variables). In conclusion, UKM2 produces reliable results requiring less data to be entered than using UKM3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tom Buur (2008) studied this question.