Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1161–1166 | Cite as

Comparison of single-pool and equilibrated Kt/V values for pediatric hemodialysis prescription management: analysis from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Clinical Performance Measures Project

  • Stuart L. GoldsteinEmail author
  • Andrew Brem
  • Bradley A. Warady
  • Barbara Fivush
  • Diane Frankenfield
Original Article


Current formulas that estimate the delivered dose of hemodialysis rely upon pre- and post-treatment blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentrations for calculation. Single-pool kinetic modeling (spKt/V) uses a convenient 30-s post-dialysis BUN sample but does not take urea rebound into account. Double-pool modeling (eKt/V) uses an equilibrated BUN (eqBUN) and is the best reflection of the true urea mass removed by hemodialysis but is inconvenient for patients and costly to the dialysis unit to wait to obtain an eqBUN sample. We compared simple spKt/V and eKt/V estimation formulas using data obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Clinical Performance Measures (CPM) Project to determine how frequently these two results would lead to different prescription management. We set an expected difference Kt/V (spKt/V−eKt/V) of 0.20 based on results of the Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study; 1,513 paired spKt/V and estimated eKt/V results were available for comparison. For patients with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) (n=720), mean spKt/V and estimated eKt/V were 1.62±0.30 and 1.37±0.26, respectively. For patients with a catheter (n=793), mean spKt/V and estimated eKt/V were 1.53±0.32 and 1.33±0.29, respectively. Examination of the different spKt/V and estimated eKt/V pairings revealed a greater adequacy discordance rate between a 0.20 difference in spKt/V and estimated eKt/V at higher Kt/V values, but Kt/V discordance rates only varied from 0.3 to 5.5% depending on the paired Kt/V values used.


Kt/V Adequacy eKt/V Single-pool Hemodialysis 



The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policy of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.


  1. 1.
    (1997) NKF-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy. National Kidney Foundation. Am J Kidney Dis 30:S15–S66Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldstein SL (2004) Adequacy of dialysis in children: does small solute clearance really matter? Pediatr Nephrol 19:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldstein SL, Brewer ED (2000) Logarithmic extrapolation of a 15-minute postdialysis BUN to predict equilibrated BUN and calculate double-pool Kt/V in the pediatric hemodialysis population. Am J Kidney Dis 36:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maduell F, Garcia-Valdecasas J, Garcia H, Hernandez-Jaras J, Siguenza F, del Pozo C, Giner R, Moll R, Garrigos E (1997) Validation of different methods to calculate Kt/V considering postdialysis rebound. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12:1928–1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma A, Espinosa P, Bell L, Tom A, Rodd C (2000) Multicompartment urea kinetics in well-dialyzed children. Kidney Int 58:2138–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daugirdas JT, Schneditz D (1995) Overestimation of hemodialysis dose depends on dialysis efficiency by regional blood flow but not by conventional two pool urea kinetic analysis. ASAIO J 41:M719–M724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leblanc M, Charbonneau R, Lalumiere G, Cartier P, Deziel C (1996) Postdialysis urea rebound: determinants and influence on dialysis delivery in chronic hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 27:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedrini LA, Zereik S, Rasmy S (1988) Causes, kinetics and clinical implications of post-hemodialysis urea rebound. Kidney Int 34:817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daugirdas JT (1993) Second generation logarithmic estimates of single-pool variable volume Kt/V: an analysis of error. J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1205–1213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein SL, Sorof JM, Brewer ED (1999) Natural logarithmic estimates of Kt/V in the pediatric hemodialysis population. Am J Kidney Dis 33:518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Kusek JW, Allon M, Bailey J, Delmez JA, Depner TA, Dwyer JT, Levey AS, Levin NW, Milford E, Ornt DB, Rocco MV, Schulman G, Schwab SJ, Teehan BP, Toto R (2002) Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 347:2010–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tom A, McCauley L, Bell L, Rodd C, Espinosa P, Yu G, Yu J, Girardin C, Sharma A (1999) Growth during maintenance hemodialysis: impact of enhanced nutrition and clearance. J Pediatr 134:464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart L. Goldstein
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  • Andrew Brem
    • 2
  • Bradley A. Warady
    • 3
  • Barbara Fivush
    • 4
  • Diane Frankenfield
    • 5
  1. 1.Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Brown University Medical SchoolProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Children’s Mercy Hospital and ClinicsKansas CityUSA
  4. 4.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Center for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Texas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations