[Best practices on peritoneal dialysis: the audit of Lazio Region]. / Best practices in dialisi peritoneale: l'audit della regione Lazio.

The diffusion of peritoneal methodology can not be something out of the real organizational context and the regional directive can not be the only means to encourage the diffusion. There is the need to provide effective and sustainable levels of assistance through a clinical scientific support and sharing of best-practises. On one side, the aim is to provide an aid by the centers with great expertise in the methodology, recognized as reference points; on the other side, to establish the shared K.P.I.s (Key Performance Index), to asses the clinical effectiveness and measure the objectives to be achieved, through a modality of valuation to establish the real applicability. For this purpose, a scientific board was founded, composed by the heads of UU.OO, that provide the peritoneal dialysis, to determine which aspects to investigate and identify factors of supply improvement. The selected method was the clinical audit. The analysis of the 2011 data has allowed us to capture the situation of the peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region. The formative procedure has enabled the centers to share and standardize protocols and therapeutic procedures, identify the strengths of peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region and define the KPIs through whose compare and monitor the centers over time. The conclusive analysis of the audit has enabled to identify a series of activities to be undertaken together in order to improve the situation of the peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region. In the following years, surveys will be carried out to verify the KPIs trend.

Divert to ULTRA: differences in infused volumes and clearance in two on-line hemodiafiltration treatments.

BACKGROUND: Mixed diffusive-convective dialysis therapies offer greater removal capabilities than conventional dialysis. The aim of this study was to compare two different on-line, post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) treatments with regard to achieved convective volume and middle-molecule dialysis efficiency: standard volume control (sOL-HDF) and automated control of the transmembrane pressure (TMP) (UC-HDF). METHODS: We enrolled 30 ESRD patients (55.9 ± 14.0 years, 20/10 M/F) in a randomized, prospective, cross-over study. The patients received a 3-month period of sOL-HDF followed by UC-HDF for a further 3 months, or vice versa, using the same dialysis machine. In sOL-HDF, fixed exchange volumes were set according to a filtration fraction greater than or equal to 25%. In UC-HDF therapy, the exchanged volume was driven by a biofeedback system controlling the TMP and its set point in a double loop. Patients maintained their treatment time, dialyzer, blood flow rate, and anticoagulant regimen unchanged throughout the study. RESULTS: Greater convective volumes were achieved in UC-HDF than in sOL-HDF (23.8 ± 3.9 vs.19.8 ± 4.8 L; p<0.001) with high pre-dialysis Ht value (sOL-HDF 34.0 ± 4.5% and UC-HDF 34.0 ± 4.4%; p = 0.91). The average clearance values of ß2m and P were higher in UC-HDF than in sOL-HDF (respectively 123 ± 24 vs. 111 ± 22 ml/min, p<0.002 and 158 ± 26 vs. 152 ± 25 ml/min, p<0.05). Moreover, the UC-HDF mode led to a significantly increased rate of call-free sessions from 88% to 97% (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the biofeedback module, applied to the automatic control of TMP in on-line HDF, results in higher convective volumes and correspondingly higher ß2m and P clearances. By making the HDF treatment more automated and less complex to perform, it significantly reduced the staff workload.