الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 146 |  |  |
| | | from | 146 | | |
Abstract
The presence of residual renal function (RRF) in chronic dialysis patients contributes to improved clearance of uremic toxins, in particular the clearance of middle molecules and protein-bound solutes (Wang ,et al, 2011).
Decline of RRF also contributed significantly to anemia, inflammation, and malnutrition in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients (Wang , et al, 2011). More importantly, RRF has also been shown to be a powerful predictor of mortality, especially in patients on hemodialysis (HD) (Thijssen, et al, 2011).
Subjects were divided into two groups:
Group (1): This group included 50 patients; they all are CRF patients on hemodialysis with lost residual renal function.
Group (2): This group included 50 CRF patients with preserved RRF.
On studyingthe dialysis characteristics and adequacy of dialysis measured by total weekly Kt / V we found a higher values among patients with preserved RRF( 3.1 ± 0.75 ) than those with lost RRF ( 0.87 ± 0.17 ) , and this difference was significant (( p ≤ 0.005).
On studying thelevel of hemoglobin and the response to ESA in patients with RRF and those with lost RRF in our study we found a higher hemoglobin level (11.71 ± 1.07) ( 9.93 ± 1.58 ) and increased response to ESA in patients with preserved RRF than in those with lost RRF respectively , and the results were significant ( p ≤ 001), also the correlation between dose of ESA and hemoglobin level was strong positive in patients with preserved RRF (r = 0.867) , and weakly positive in patients with lost RRF (r = 0.187). .
On studying the serum phosphate level in both studied groups we found that serum phosphate level was higher in those with lost RRF( 6.65 ± 0.83) than in those with preserved RRF ( 5.81± 0.50 ) , ( p ≤ 0.001). In contrast to serum calcium which was lower in patients with hyperphosphatemia in patients with lost RRF.
The percentage of patients taking phosphate lowering agents( PH.L.A) in both groups which was as following : in group 1 ( lost RRF ), 42 patients were taking these agents ( 84 % ) while 8 ( 16 % ) don’t take these agents , in group 2 ( preserved RRF) , 40 ( 80 % ) patients were taking these drugs while 10 ( 20 % ) patients don’t , and the difference was not significant ( p = 0.603) .