Ultrafiltration Patterns during Automated Peritoneal Dialysis: Findings and Insights to Peritoneal Physiology.


Journal

Kidney360
ISSN: 2641-7650
Titre abrégé: Kidney360
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101766381

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 29 03 2024
accepted: 03 07 2024
medline: 8 7 2024
pubmed: 8 7 2024
entrez: 8 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

With the growing use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), it is important to improve our knowledge of the clinical patterns and physiology of APD treatment sessions. The ultrafiltration (UF) achieved during each cycle of an APD treatment is assumed to be relatively linear if the delivered prescription is the same. We set out to determine if that is indeed the case. Single-center, cross-sectional study of prevalent PD patients. All adult APD patients (> 18 years of age), who had been on PD for >3 months, and >3 months on APD were included. Continuous ambulatory PD patients or those with peritonitis within 3 months of the consent date were excluded. Individual treatment data from 7 consecutive APD treatment sessions with consistent dialysate composition for each cycler exchange were collected for each subject. Thirty-nine subjects met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The probability of yielding a positive UF was 48.9% for cycle 1, rising to 90.5% by cycle 6. Adjusting for average dextrose concentration, dwell time, fill volume, solute transfer rate, and number of cycles, we observed that cycles 2 through 6 achieved progressively higher UF volumes than cycle 1 (p < 0.001). The first and last cycles demonstrated significantly different cycle UF volumes compared to a middle cycle (-230 ml and 277 ml, respectively, p < 0.001). We observed a consistent increase in UF volumes achieved per cycle over the course of an APD treatment session with numerous clinical and physiologic implications. This provides the foundation for future studies investigating peritoneal inter-cycle variations and membrane physiology.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
With the growing use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), it is important to improve our knowledge of the clinical patterns and physiology of APD treatment sessions. The ultrafiltration (UF) achieved during each cycle of an APD treatment is assumed to be relatively linear if the delivered prescription is the same. We set out to determine if that is indeed the case.
METHODS METHODS
Single-center, cross-sectional study of prevalent PD patients. All adult APD patients (> 18 years of age), who had been on PD for >3 months, and >3 months on APD were included. Continuous ambulatory PD patients or those with peritonitis within 3 months of the consent date were excluded. Individual treatment data from 7 consecutive APD treatment sessions with consistent dialysate composition for each cycler exchange were collected for each subject.
RESULTS RESULTS
Thirty-nine subjects met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The probability of yielding a positive UF was 48.9% for cycle 1, rising to 90.5% by cycle 6. Adjusting for average dextrose concentration, dwell time, fill volume, solute transfer rate, and number of cycles, we observed that cycles 2 through 6 achieved progressively higher UF volumes than cycle 1 (p < 0.001). The first and last cycles demonstrated significantly different cycle UF volumes compared to a middle cycle (-230 ml and 277 ml, respectively, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We observed a consistent increase in UF volumes achieved per cycle over the course of an APD treatment session with numerous clinical and physiologic implications. This provides the foundation for future studies investigating peritoneal inter-cycle variations and membrane physiology.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38976566
doi: 10.34067/KID.0000000000000506
pii: 02200512-990000000-00422
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Nephrology.

Auteurs

Osama El Shamy (O)

Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.

Nicole Wyatt (N)

Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.

Sagar Patel (S)

Renal Associates LLC, Columbus, Georgia, USA.

Naief Abudaff (N)

Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Robert Greevy (R)

Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Andrew Guide (A)

Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Ankur D Shah (AD)

Division of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

Juan Pablo Arroyo (JP)

Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.

Thomas A Golper (TA)

Division of Nephrology, Robert Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.

Classifications MeSH