Adequacy in dialysis: intermittent versus continuous therapies.

ABSTRACT

A vital conceptual difference between intermittent and continuous dialysis therapies is the difference in the relationship between Kt/V urea and dietary protein intake. For a given level of protein intake the intermittent therapies require a higher Kt/V urea due to the reasons mentioned above. The recently released adequacy guidelines by DOQI for intermittent and continuous therapies are based on these assumptions. The link between adequacy targets and patient survival is well documented for an intermittent therapy like HD. For a continuous therapy like CAPD however, the evidence linking improved peritoneal clearance to better survival is not as direct. However, present consensus allows one to extrapolate results based on HD. The concept of earlier and healthier initiation of dialysis is gaining hold and incremental dialysis forms an integral aspect of the whole concept. Tools like urea kinetic modeling give us valuable insight in making mathematical projections about the timing as well as dosing of dialysis. Daily home hemodialysis is still an underutilized modality despite offering best survival figures. Hopefully, with increasing availability of better and simpler machines its use will increase. Still several questions remain unanswered. Despite availability of data in hemodialysis patients suggesting that an increased dialysis prescription leads to a better survival, optimal dialysis dose is yet to be defined. Concerns regarding methodology of such studies and conclusions thereof has been raised. Other issues relating to design of the studies, variation in dialysis delivery, use of uncontrolled historical standards and lack of patient randomization etc also need to be considered when designing such trials. Hopefully an ongoing prospective randomized trial, namely the HEMO study, looking at two precisely defined and carefully maintained dialysis prescriptions will provide some insight into adequacy of dialysis dose and survival. In diabetic patients, the relationship between outcome and dialysis dose needs to be better defined. Data relating adequacy of dialysis to outcome in a pediatric population is not available. In dialysis therapy, the Risk/Dose (R/D) function does not bear a linear relationship. This together with a lack of proof equating peritoneal to renal clearance lends some uncertainty to the validity of the recommendation that there is a linear and constant decrease in RR for std (Kt/V) [equivalent standardized Kt/V calculated from average predialysis BUN for any frequency and/or combination of intermittent and continuous dialysis ref] up to 2.3 as reported in the CANUSA study. Due to the complex nature of this problem it may be prudent to undertake a multi-center trial with std (Kt/V) prospectively randomized to either 2.0 or 2.4. This would provide a reliable database to evaluate the R/D function over this critical range of normalized peritoneal urea clearance. Likewise in PD, the postulated linearity between dialysis dose and outcome needs to be studied in a prospective randomized manner. The amount of dialysis dose required for malnourished patients, diabetic and pediatric patients needs to be better defined. The role of aggressive dialysis in reversing malnutrition needs to be studied and studies need to be done to identify the most scientific use of V in malnourished patients. Justification of a healthy start/incremental dialysis based on outcome measures needs to be established and it's cost effectiveness validated by clinical trials. Again, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing incremental dialysis with dietary protein restriction in patients with GFR < or = 10.5 ml/min/1.73 m2 with properly defined outcome measures like morbidity, mortality, decline of GFR and quality of life needs to be conducted. Comparisons of incremental hemodialysis and incremental peritoneal dialysis need to be made especially with regard to technique survival and preservation of residual renal function (RRF). (ABSTR