Acute central haemodynamic effects induced by intraperitoneal glucose instillation.

BACKGROUND: The supposed lack of a haemodynamic impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been challenged recently by the finding of a mild increase of peripheral blood pressure (BP) during an acute dwell. It is not clear whether, besides the effect of changes in intraperitoneal (IP) volume and/or pressure, IP glucose instillation and absorption plays a role in this. Therefore, we tested the impact of IP instillation of glucose on the evolution of central haemodynamic parameters, using SphygmoCor, during an acute dwell with two different glucose concentrations. METHODS: Stable, non-diabetic PD patients (N = 22) were treated consecutively in a randomized, cross-over design (A then B or B then A) with one 1.36% (A) and one 3.86% (B) physioneal dwell of 100 min. Central BP was measured with SphygmoCor and blood was sampled for serum glucose and insulin levels every 20 min. Insulin resistance was defined as a Homeostatic Model Assessment Index (HOMA-index) >1.4. RESULTS: Serum glucose levels rose during both the 1.36% and the 3.86% dwell, whereas insulin levels rose only during the 3.86% dwell. The increase of both glucose and insulin levels was more pronounced in patients with insulin resistance (11/22 patients). There was, however, no accompanying change versus baseline in haemodynamic parameters (carotid systolic blood pressure, diastolic BP, heart rate or augmentation index). CONCLUSION: Despite substantial increases in blood glucose and insulin levels, there was no accompanying change in central haemodynamic parameters during an acute PD dwell with low or high glucose concentrations.

A randomized clinical trial with a 0.6% amino acid/ 1.4% glycerol peritoneal dialysis solution.

BACKGROUND: Glucose is an accepted osmotic agent for peritoneal dialysis (PD) although it has several drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks have been addressed by the introduction of solutions with low glucose degradation products and physiological pH in dual-chambered bags. Despite this achievement, there is a need for alternative osmotic agents.This randomized clinical trial analyzes 3-month's clinical experience with a mixture of 0.6% amino acids and 1.4% glycerol. METHODS: The study was performed at the renal units of the University Hospitals Ghent, Belgium, and Utrecht, The Netherlands. Stable PD patients were randomized for either protocol A (test solution, n = 5) or protocol B (control regimen, n = 5). In both protocols, there was a run-in phase of 1 month with a dialysis regimen of 2 x 2 L 2.27% glucose solution (Dianeal; Baxter, Nivelles, Belgium), 1 x 2 L Extraneal (Baxter), and 1 x 2 L glucose solution (Dianeal). After this month-long run-in period, patients in group A received during 3 months 2 x 2 L amino acid/glycerol solution, 1 x 2 L Extraneal, and at least 1 x 2 L of a classic glucose solution. RESULTS: Glucose absorption decreased in the test group during the test phase (from 84.2 +/- 8.7 to 11.7 +/- 11.6 g/24 hours, p = 0.001). Dialysate levels of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) increased in the test group, from 17.5 +/- 11.0 to 32.4 +/- 4.6 units/L (p = 0.04), whereas, in the control group, the levels remained stable (15.5 +/- 8.7 and 14.9 +/- 9.8 units/L respectively, p = 0.4). There were no differences in serum urea, serum bicarbonate, serum osmolarity, serum albumin, or parameters related to skin-fold thickness or serum glycerol levels between control and test solutions. No differences were observed in obtained ultrafiltration after a 4-hour dwell with 2.27% glucose or the test solution, both measured at week 4 of the run-in period and week 12 of the test period. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the use of a new 0.6% amino acid/1.4% glycerol-containing dialysis solution is safe and well tolerated. Glucose load was reduced significantly and dialysate CA125 levels improved significantly. Ultrafiltration was comparable with that of a 2.27% glucose solution. All these factors, in combination with the potential nutritional benefits, can contribute to a beneficial impact on the success of the PD technique. Further long-term studies in larger patient groups are warranted to explore the potential of this promising new solution.

Post insertion catheter care in peritoneal dialysis (PD) centres across Europe--Part 2: complication rates and individual patient outcomes.

The first part of this report, which looked at centre policy, showed that there was no consensus on the best way to manage a patient in the rest period between PD catheter insertion and the first use of the catheter for dialysis. This paper intends to investigate if the differences in policy had any effect on complication rate and individual patient outcomes. Data were included from 298 patients of 49 participating centres. The results revealed a high rate of catheter related complications, with half of the patients having been treated for complications including leakage (29%), malfunction (23%) or infection (10%), and a quarter of patients having been hospitalised for catheter problems. Leakage was more frequently observed in lean and obese patients and if the catheter was only immobilized for a short time period. Diabetes, having constipation at first use and having rested for less than 6 hours after catheter insertion were significant risk factors for malfunction. Infection seemed to be related to the type of catheter used and hygienic precautions (not significant) and showed a significant relationship with the frequency of dressing changes. There is still an important lack of evidence on which to develop an optimal protocol for PD catheter insertion and care before first use.

Body composition, hydration, and related parameters in hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis patients.

AIMS: Maintaining euvolemia is an important goal in patients on renal replacement therapy. However, adequate assessment of volume status in clinical practice is hampered by a lack of accurate measuring tools. A new multifrequency bioimpedance tool has recently been validated. This study compares volume status in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients in a single center. METHODS: Body Composition Monitoring (BCM; Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany) was performed in all patients on PD or HD without contraindication. PD patients were measured with a full abdomen; HD patients were measured at the midweek session, once immediately before and once 20 minutes after dialysis. Clinical overhydration was defined as an overhydration-to-extracellular water ratio of >0.15. RESULTS: Total body water, extracellular water, and intracellular water were 33.7 +/- 6.9 L versus 31.8 +/- 8.1 L vs 33.9 +/- 6.7 L, 16.4 +/- 3.9 L vs 15.3 +/- 4.9 L vs 16.8 +/- 3.3 L, and 17.1 +/- 6.2 L vs 16.5 +/- 4.6 L vs 17.2 +/- 3.9 L in the pre-HD, post-HD, and PD patients, respectively (p = NS). In the pre-HD and the PD patients, overhydration was 1.9 +/- 1.7 L and 2.1 +/- 2.3 L, whereas post-HD this was only 0.6 +/- 1.7 L (p < 0.001). Clinical overhydration was more prevalent in pre-HD and PD patients compared to post-HD patients (24.1% vs 22.3% vs 10%, p < 0.001). In multivariate models, overhydration was related to age, male gender, and post-HD status. CONCLUSION: Although much clinical attention is paid to volume status, 24% of patients still have clinically relevant volume overload. Implementation of a reliable and clinically applicable tool to assess volume status is therefore necessary. It is possible to obtain comparable volume status in PD and HD patients.

The personal dialysis capacity test is superior to the peritoneal equilibration test to discriminate inflammation as the cause of fast transport status in peritoneal dialysis patients.

This study evaluated the potential of the Personal Dialysis Capacity (PDC) test to discriminate fast transport status (FTS) as a consequence of inflammation versus FTS because of other causes. This distinction is important because new therapeutic options such as icodextrin and automated peritoneal dialysis can abolish the negative impact on outcome of FTS if fast transport is not caused by inflammation. A PDC test and a Peritoneal Equilibration Test (PET) were performed in 135 incident PD patients. Membrane characteristics were related with baseline biochemical parameters and C-reactive protein. After correction for other covariates, only large pore flux (J(v)L) but not surface area over diffusion distance (A0/dX) or dialysate over plasma concentration was related to C-reactive protein. Using the PDC test for detection of inflammation, positive and negative predictive values were 16/36 and 80/99, respectively, whereas with PET, positive predictive value was 5/20 and negative predictive value 92/115 (chi2 = 0.009). In a Cox regression for patient survival with correction for age, a J(v)L higher than expected by the surface area over diffusion distance, predicted outcome (P = 0.04). Patients with inflammation had a higher J(v)L (0.21 +/- 0.12 versus 0.17 +/- 0.09; P = 0.06) and a lower ultrafiltration (89 +/- 631 versus 386 +/- 601 ml/d; P = 0.06) and urine output (878.45 +/- 533.55 versus 1322 +/- 822 ml/d; P = 0.023) than patients without inflammation. There was no difference for surface area over diffusion distance (A0/dX) or dialysate over plasma concentration. A PDC test yields far more information about the peritoneal membrane characteristics than a PET. A J(v)L higher than expected by the A0/dX is an indicator of inflammation and is related to an increased mortality. The PET is not able to discriminate between FTS because of inflammation versus because of anatomic reasons, whereas the PDC test does.