High volume peritoneal dialysis for acute renal failure.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still widely used for acute renal failure (ARF) in developing countries despite concerns about its inadequacy. Continuous PD has been evaluated in ARF by analyzing the resolution of metabolic abnormality and normalization of plasma pH, bicarbonate, and potassium. METHODOLOGY: A prospective study was performed on 30 ARF patients who were assigned to high-dose continuous PD (Kt/V = 0.65 per session) via a flexible catheter (Tenckhoff) and automated PD with a cycler. Fluid removal, pH and metabolic control, protein loss, and patient outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients received 236 continuous PD sessions; 76% were admitted to ICUs. APACHE II score was 32.2+/-8.65. BUN concentrations stabilized after 3 sessions, creatinine after 4, and bicarbonate and pH after 2. Fluid removal was 2.1+/-0.62 L/day. Creatinine and urea clearances were 15.8+/-4.16 and 17.3+/-5.01 mL/minute respectively. Normalized creatinine clearance and urea Kt/V values were 110.6+/-22.5 L/week/1.73 m(2) body surface area and 3.8+/-0.6 respectively. Solute reduction index was 41%+/-6.5% per session. Serum albumin values remained stable in spite of considerable protein losses (median 21.7 g/day, interquartile range 9.1-29.8 g/day). Regarding ARF outcome, 23% of patients presented renal function recovery, 13% remained on dialysis after 30 days of follow-up, and 57% died. CONCLUSION: High-dose continuous PD by flexible catheter and cycler was an effective treatment for ARF. It provided high solute removal, allowing appropriate metabolic and pH control, and adequate dialysis dose and fluid removal. Continuous PD can therefore be considered an alternative to other forms of renal replacement therapy in ARF.

Peritoneal dialysis in acute renal failure.

The definition of adequate dialysis in acute renal failure (ARF) is complex and involves the time of referral to dialysis, dose, and dialytic method. Nephrologist experience with a specific procedure and the availability of different dialysis modalities play an important role in these choices. There is no consensus in literature on the best method or ideal dialysis dose in ARF. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is used less and less in ARF patients, and is being replaced by continuous venovenous therapies. However, it should not be discarded as a worthless therapeutic option for ARF patients. PD offers several advantages over hemodialysis, such as its technical simplicity, excellent cardiovascular tolerance, absence of an extracorporeal circuit, lack of bleeding risk, and low risk of hydro-electrolyte imbalance. PD also has some limitations, though: it needs an intact peritoneal cavity, carries risks of peritoneal infection and protein losses, and has an overall lower effectiveness. Because daily solute clearance is lower with PD than with daily HD, there have been concerns that PD cannot control uremia in ARF patients. Controversies exist concerning its use in patients with severe hypercatabolism; in these cases, daily hemodialysis or continuous venovenous therapy have been preferred. There is little literature on PD in ARF patients, and what exists does not address fundamental parameters such as adequate quantification of dialysis and patient catabolism. Given these limitations, there is a pressing need to re-evaluate the adequacy of PD in ARF using accepted standards. Therefore, new studies should be undertaken to resolve these problems.