Clinical relevance of marginal factors on ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis.

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.

Intraperitoneal pressure: Stability over time and validation of Durand's measurement method.

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.