[Focusing on peritoneal dialysis adequacy]. / Adéquation en dialyse péritonéale : mise au point.

The optimal method to assess the adequacy of peritoneal dialysis therapies is controversial. Today, the adequacy must not be considered as a number or a concept assessed only by two parameters (total KT/V urea and total solute clearance) but defined by many more items. In the absence of data, based on theoretical considerations, the reanalysis of the CANUSA study showed that renal kidney function, rather than peritoneal clearance, was associated with improved survival. Residual renal function is considered as a major predictor factor of cardiovascular mortality. Results of this reanalysis were supported by the adequacy data in ADEMEX, EAPOS and ANZDATA studies. Therefore, clinical assessment plays a major role in PD adequacy. The management of fluid balance, the regular monitoring of malnutrition, the control of mineral metabolism and particularly the glucose load, considered as the "corner-stone" of the system, are the main points to be considered in the adequacy of PD patients. The essential goal is to minimize glucose load by glucose-sparing strategies in order to reduce the neoangiogenesis of the peritoneal membrane.

Electrophysiological response to dialysis: the role of dialysate potassium content and profiling.

UNLABELLED: The task of dialysis therapy is, amongst other things, to remove excess potassium (K+) from the body. The need to achieve an adequate K+ removal with the risk of cardiac arrhythmias due to sudden intra-extracellular K+ gradient advises the distribution of the removal throughout the dialysis session instead of just in the first half. The aim of the study was to investigate the electrical behavior of two different K+ removal rates on myocardial cells (risk of arrhythmia and ECG alterations). Constant acetate-free biofiltration (AFB) and profiled K+ (decreasing during the treatment) AFB (AFBK) were used in a patient sample to understand, first of all, the effect on premature ventricular contraction (PVC) and on repolarization indices [QT dispersion (QTd) and principal component analysis (PCA)]. The study was divided into two phases: phase 1 was a pilot study to evaluate K+ kinetics and to test the effect on the electrophysiological response of the two procedures. The second phase was set up as an extended cross-over multicenter trial in patient subsets prone to arrhythmias during dialysis. Phase 1: PVC increased during both AFB and AFBK but less in the latter in the middle of dialysis (298 in AFB vs. 200 in AFBK). The PVC/h in a subset of arrhythmic patients was 404 +/- 145 in AFB and 309 +/- 116 in AFBK (p = 0.0028). QT interval (QTc) prolongation was less pronounced in AFBK than in AFB. Phase 2: The PVC again increased in both AFB and AFBK but less in the latter mid-way through dialysis (79 +/- 19 AFB vs. 53 +/- 13 AFBK). Moreover, in the most arrhythmic patients the benefit accruing from the smooth K+ removal rate was more pronounced (103 +/- 19 in AFB vs. 78 +/- 13 in AFBK). CONCLUSION: It is not the K+ dialysis removal alone that can be destabilizing from an electrophysiological standpoint, but rather its removal dynamics. This is all the more evident in patients with arrhythmias who benefit from the K+ profiling during their dialysis treatment.