[Standardized histomorphological processing of peritoneal biopsies as part of the German Peritoneal Biopsy Registry (GRIP, German registry in PD)]. / Standardisierte histomorphologische Aufarbeitung von Peritonealbiopsien im Rahmen des Deutschen Peritonealbiopsieregisters (GRIP, German Registry In PD).

The peritoneal lining of the abdominal cavity consists of a parietal and visceral sheet. The serosa is an interesting organ, which in medical practice is particularly important in the context of chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD). This method of renal replacement therapy utilizes the semipermeability of the peritoneal surface by applying PD solutions of differing osmolarity to eliminate toxic substances and regulate fluid and electrolyte equilibrium. This method is an ideal approach especially for younger patients and is very effective at least for some time. Pre-existing injury to the peritoneum, for example as a consequence of chronic renal insufficiency or associated comorbidities and inflammatory changes that develop during PD, results in a structural remodelling of the serosa. As a consequence, the filtering function of the serosa is lost and PD has to be replaced by another renal replacement therapy. Thorough knowledge of the morphology of peritoneal changes as well as of the risk factors is of paramount importance for therapeutic management and prognosis of PD patients. In order to take this into account, the German Registry In Peritoneal Dialysis (Deutsches Peritonealbiopsieregister, GRIP) was founded a few years ago, which now includes roughly 1700 biopsies, of which detailed clinical and histomorphological information was systematically acquired and collected.

Benefits of peritoneal ultrafiltration in HFpEF and HFrEF patients.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality. METHODS: This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF. RESULTS: Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P <  0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P <  0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P <  0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.

Peritoneal dialysis as therapeutic option in heart failure patients.

AIMS: Each episode of acute decompensated heart failure (HF) incrementally adds to mortality. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers an alternative therapeutic option in refractory HF and reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of PD, in terms of functional status, surrogate endpoints, rate of hospitalizations, and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is based on the registry of the German Society of Nephrology, involving 159 patients receiving PD treatment due to refractory HF between January 2010 and December 2014. Body weight was reduced by PD (82.2 ± 14.9 to 78.4 ± 14.8 kg, P < 0.001), and significant improvements in New York Heart Association functional class (3.38 ± 0.55 to 2.85 ± 0.49, P < 0.001) were found already after 3 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction did not change (31.5 ± 13.8 to 34.0 ± 15.7%, P = 0.175). C-reactive protein improved with PD treatment (33.7 ± 52.6 to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/L, P = 0.004). Blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio decreased significantly (148.7 ± 68.3 to 106.7 ± 44.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001). Hospitalization rates decreased significantly (total number 2.86 ± 1.88 to 1.90 ± 1.78, P = 0.001, and 39.2 ± 30.7 to 27.1 ± 25.2 days, P = 0.004). One year mortality was 39.6% in end-stage HF patients treated with PD. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal dialysis offers an additional therapeutic option in end-stage HF and is associated with improved New York Heart Association classification and reduced hospitalization. Although PD treatment was associated with various benefits, further studies are necessary to identify which patients benefit the most from PD.