ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Peritoneal Dialysis , Ultrafiltration , Dialysis Solutions , Female , Glucose , Hernia , Humans , Male , PeritoneumABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Peritoneal Dialysis , Adult , Body Mass Index , Humans , Peritoneal Cavity , Peritoneum , PressureABSTRACT
El vertiginoso avance de las nuevas tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC's) ha generado, además de innumerables beneficios a la sociedad, cambios en nuestros hábitos de vida que no siempre son fáciles de asimilar de manera saludable. Estos hábitos son un caldo de cultivo en el que pueden desarrollarse malos usos de las TIC's, llegando a situaciones en las que se puede hablar de una adicción comportamental. El presente trabajo expone la experiencia del Centro de Tratamiento Triora MonteAlminara de Málaga en el desarrollo de una propuesta para el abordaje integral de esta problemática. Este proyecto incluye dos líneas fundamentales: la prevención en centros educativos y sociales, dirigida a jóvenes, familiares y profesorado; y el tratamiento de personas afectadas por este problema, con intervenciones como el ingreso terapéutico, orientación familiar y tratamiento ambulatorio individual y/o grupal, en función de las particularidades de cada proceso
The vertiginous progress of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) has generated, in addition to countless benefits to society, changes in our lifestyle habits that are not always easy to assimilate in a healthy way. These habits are a breeding ground in which poor and dysfunctional uses of ICT can be developed, resulting in what can be considered a behavioral addiction. The present research presents the experience of the Triora MonteAlminara Treatment Center of Malaga in developing a proposal for an integral approach to this problem. This project includes two fundamental lines of work: prevention in educational and social centers, aimed at young people, relatives and educational staff; and the treatment of people affected by this problem, with therapeutic interventions such as treatment center admission, family counseling and individual and/or group outpatient treatment, according to the particularities of each personal process
Subject(s)
Humans , Behavior, Addictive/psychology , Social Support , Technology , Behavior, Addictive/rehabilitation , Cell Phone , Risk Factors , Behavior, Addictive/prevention & control , Child Behavior/psychology , Adolescent Behavior/psychologyABSTRACT
La medida de la presión intraperitoneal en diálisis peritoneal es muy sencilla y aporta claros beneficios terapéuticos. Sin embargo, su monitorización todavía no se ha generalizado en las unidades de diálisis peritoneal de adultos. Esta revisión pretende divulgar su conocimiento y la utilidad de su medida. Se realiza en decúbito antes de iniciar el drenaje de un intercambio manual con bolsa en Y, elevando la bolsa de drenaje y midiendo la altura que alcanza la columna de líquido desde la línea medio-axilar. Los valores habituales son 10 a 16 cmH2O y nunca debe superar los 18 cmH2O. Aumenta de 1 a 3 cmH2O por litro de volumen intraperitoneal sobre valores basales que dependen del índice de masa corporal y varía con la postura y la actividad física. Su aumento provoca malestar, alteraciones del sueño y de la respiración, y se ha relacionado con la aparición de fugas de líquido, hernias, hidrotórax, reflujo gastroesofágico y peritonitis por gérmenes intestinales. Menos conocida y valorada es su capacidad para disminuir la eficacia de la diálisis contrarrestando, sobre todo, la ultrafiltración y, en menor grado, el aclaramiento de solutos. Por su facilidad de medida y potencial utilidad, debería ser uno de los factores que investigar en los fallos de ultrafiltración, pues su elevación podría contribuir a ellos en algunos pacientes. Aunque todavía no se menciona en las guías de actuación en diálisis peritoneal, sus claros beneficios justifican su inclusión entre las mediciones periódicas que considerar para la prescripción y seguimiento de la diálisis peritoneal (AU)
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 (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Peritoneal Dialysis/methods , Hydrostatic Pressure , Ultrafiltration/methods , Ascitic Fluid/chemistry , Ascitic Fluid/pathologyABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Ascitic Fluid/physiology , Peritoneal Dialysis/methods , Pressure , Adult , Body Mass Index , Dialysis Solutions/administration & dosage , Dialysis Solutions/adverse effects , Dialysis Solutions/pharmacokinetics , Humans , Hydrostatic Pressure , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Manometry/methods , Peritoneal Dialysis/adverse effects , Reference Values , Supine Position , UltrafiltrationABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Glucose/metabolism , Hemofiltration/methods , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Peritoneal Dialysis/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biological Transport/physiology , Combined Modality Therapy , Dialysis Solutions/metabolism , Dialysis Solutions/pharmacology , Female , Humans , Kidney Failure, Chronic/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Osmosis , Patient Safety , Peritoneal Dialysis/adverse effects , Peritoneum/metabolism , Pilot Projects , Quality Improvement , Risk Assessment , Sampling Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sialadenitis/chemically induced , Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials/complications , Hernia, Inguinal/diagnosis , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Peritonitis/diagnosis , Peritonitis/microbiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Peritonitis/epidemiology , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Renal Dialysis , Risk Factors , Survival RateABSTRACT
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.
