Clinical relevance of marginal factors on ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration (UF) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) is mainly driven by the osmotic gradient and peritoneal permeability, but other factors-such as intraperitoneal pressure (IPP)-also have an influence. METHODS: To assess the clinical relevance of these marginal factors, we studied 41 unselected PD patients undergoing two consecutive 2 h, 2.27% glucose exchanges, first with 2.5 L and then with 1.5 L. RESULTS: IPP, higher in the 2.5 L exchange, had a wide interpatient range, was higher in obese and polycystic patients and their increase with infusion volume was higher for women regardless of body size. UF with 2.5 L correlated inversely with IPP and was higher for patients with polycystosis or hernias, while for 1.5 L we found no significant correlations. The effluent had higher glucose and osmolarity in the 2.5 L exchange than in the 1.5 L one, similar for both sexes. In spite of this stronger osmotic gradient, only 21 patients had more UF in the 2.5 L exchange, with differences up to 240 mL. The other 20 patients had more UF in the 1.5 L exchange, with stronger differences (up to 800 mL, and more than 240 mL for 9 patients). The second group, with similar effluent osmolarity and peritoneal equilibration test (PET) parameters than the first, has higher IPP and preponderance of men. The sex influence is so intense that men decreased average UF with 2.5 L with respect to 1.5 L, while women increased it. CONCLUSIONS: With 2.27% glucose, sex and IPP-modulated by obesity, polycystosis, hernias, and intraperitoneal volume-significantly affect UF in clinical settings and might be useful for its management.

Intraperitoneal pressure: Stability over time and validation of Durand's measurement method.

Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) is gaining consideration as a relevant parameter of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in adults, although many of its aspects are still pending clarification. We address here its stability over time and the validity of the usual method of clinical measurement, as proposed by Durand in 1992 but never specifically validated. We performed this validation by comparing Durand's method and direct measurements with a central venous pressure system. We performed a total of 250 measurement pairs in 50 patients with different intraperitoneal volumes plus in-vitro measurements with a simulated peritoneum. Absolute differences between the two systems in vivo were 0.87 ± 0.91 cmH2O (range 0-5 cmH2O); only 6.4% of them were ≥3 cmH2O. In vitro results for both methods were identical. We also compared IPP measurements in the same patient separated by 1-4 h (514 measurement pairs in 136 patients), 1 week (92 pairs in 92 patients), and 2 years (34 pairs in 17 patients). Net differences of measurements separated by hours or 1 week were close to 0 cmH2O, with oscillations of 1.5 cmH2O in hours and 2.3 cmH2O in 1 week. IPP measured 2 years apart presented a net decrease of 2.5 ± 4.9 cmH2O, without correlation with body mass index changes or any other usual parameter of PD. In hours, 7% of IPP differences were >3 cmH2O, 22% in 1 week, and 50% in 2 years. In conclusion, Durand's method is precise enough to measure IPP in peritoneal dialysis. This parameter is not stable over long timescales, so it is necessary to use recent measurements.

Intraperitoneal pressure in peritoneal dialysis. / La presión intraperitoneal en diálisis peritoneal.

The measure of intraperitoneal pressure in peritoneal dialysis is easy and provides clear therapeutic benefits. However it is measured only rarely in adult peritoneal dialysis units. This review aims to disseminate the usefulness of measuring intraperitoneal pressure. This measurement is performed in supine before initiating the drain of a manual exchange with "Y" system, by raising the drain bag and measuring from the mid-axillary line the height of the liquid column that rises from the patient. With typical values of 10-16 cmH2O, intraperitoneal pressure should never exceed 18 cmH2O. With basal values that depend on body mass index, it increases 1-3 cmH2O/L of intraperitoneal volume, and varies with posture and physical activity. Its increase causes discomfort, sleep and breathing disturbances, and has been linked to the occurrence of leaks, hernias, hydrothorax, gastro-esophageal reflux and enteric peritonitis. Less known and valued is its ability to decrease the effectiveness of dialysis significantly counteracting ultrafiltration and decreasing solute clearance to a smaller degree. Because of its easy measurement and potential utility, should be monitored in case of ultrafiltration failure to rule out its eventual contribution in some patients. Although not yet mentioned in the clinical practice guidelines for PD, its clear benefits justify its inclusion among the periodic measurements to consider for prescribing and monitoring peritoneal dialysis.

A New Method to Increase Ultrafiltration in Peritoneal Dialysis: Steady Concentration Peritoneal Dialysis.

UNLABELLED: ♦ BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has limited power for liquid extraction (ultrafiltration), so fluid overload remains a major cause of treatment failure. ♦ METHODS: We present steady concentration peritonal dialysis (SCPD), which increases ultrafiltration of PD exchanges by maintaining a constant peritoneal glucose concentration. This is achieved by infusing 50% glucose solution at a constant rate (typically 40 mL/h) during the 4-hour dwell of a 2-L 1.36% glucose exchange. We treated 21 fluid overload episodes on 6 PD patients with high or average-high peritoneal transport characteristics who refused hemodialysis as an alternative. Each treatment consisted of a single session with 1 to 4 SCPD exchanges (as needed). ♦ RESULTS: Ultrafiltration averaged 653 ± 363 mL/4 h - twice the ultrafiltration of the peritoneal equilibration test (PET) (300 ± 251 mL/4 h, p < 0.001) and 6-fold the daily ultrafiltration (100 ± 123 mL/4 h, p < 0.001). Serum and peritoneal glucose stability and dialysis efficacy were excellent (glycemia 126 ± 25 mg/dL, peritoneal glucose 1,830 ± 365 mg/dL, D/P creatinine 0.77 ± 0.08). The treatment reversed all episodes of fluid overload, avoiding transfer to hemodialysis. Ultrafiltration was proportional to fluid overload (p < 0.01) and inversely proportional to final peritoneal glucose concentration (p < 0.05). ♦ CONCLUSION: This preliminary clinical experience confirms the potential of SCPD to safely and effectively increase ultrafiltration of PD exchanges. It also shows peritoneal transport in a new dynamic context, enhancing the influence of factors unrelated to the osmotic gradient.

First episodes of peritoneal infection: description and prognostic factors.

INTRODUCTION: Peritonitis is one of the most common and severe complications associated with peritoneal dialysis (PD), constituting the primary cause of catheter loss and exit from the dialysis technique. The incidence and aetiology of peritonitis episodes vary based on geographical region, and change over time. For this reason, it is vital to maintain an updated understanding of the current risk factors and prognostic factors associated with peritonitis. METHOD: We performed an observational, multi-centre, prospective cohort study with a maximum follow-up period of 7 years (2003-2010), which included 1177 patients and a total of 476 first episodes of peritonitis (total: 1091 cases of peritonitis). RESULTS: We describe the characteristics of the first episode of peritonitis from a large and current study sample. The factors associated with a shorter interval until the first episode of peritonitis as selected by the multivariate analysis included prior cardiovascular comorbidity (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.25 [1.04-1.58]), having previously received haemodialysis (HR: 1.39 [1.10-1.76]) or a kidney transplant (HR: 1.38 [1.10-1.93]), having started PD on a manual modality (HR: 1.39 [1.13-1.73]), and initial age >70 years (HR: 1.53 [1.23-1.90]). The first episode of peritonitis was associated with a 7.8% rate of recurrence, an 11.7% rate of catheter removal, and a mortality rate within one month of the episode of 1.3%. The progression of peritonitis infections depended on the type of causal microorganism. We calculated a greater risk for gram-negative bacterial infections (Odds Ratio [OR]: 5.31 [2.26-12.48]) and the aggregate group of infections caused by multiple microorganisms, fungal infections, and mycobacterial infections (OR: 38.24 [13.84-105.63]), as compared to gram-positive bacterial infections. CONCLUSION: The development of a first case of peritonitis depends on the characteristics of the patient upon starting dialysis, comorbidities present, and the technique used. Patients at a greater risk for peritonitis must receive special care during training and follow-up.

Long-term pneumoperitoneum in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) caused by handling fault of Stay.Safe® system associated to bicaVera solution.

We found chronic pneumoperitoneum in two continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients from two different hospitals. Both patients used the Stay.Safe® system and bicaVera solution, whose extension tubing is not primed with fluid but air-filled, unlike that of the conventional solution bags. This fact, together with a handling fault common to both patients, resulted in the inflow of the air in the tubing of bicaVera bags into the peritoneal cavity during every exchange. We warn of this complication, which must be specifically pointed out during training, and we recommend providing the system with a mechanic device to prevent this handling fault.