Should sodium removal in peritoneal dialysis be estimated from the ultrafiltration volume?

Sodium handling in pediatric patients on maintenance dialysis

The risk of cardiovascular disease remains exceedingly high in pediatric patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5 on dialysis (CKD 5D). Sodium (Na+) overload is a major cardiovascular risk factor in this population, both through volume-dependent and volume-independent toxicity. Given that compliance with a Na+-restricted diet is generally limited and urinary Na+ excretion impaired in CKD 5D, dialytic Na+ removal is critical to reduce Na+ overload. On the other hand, an excessive or too fast intradialytic Na+ removal may lead to volume depletion, hypotension, and organ hypoperfusion. This review presents current knowledge on intradialytic Na+ handling and possible strategies to optimize dialytic Na+ removal in pediatric patients on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is increasing evidence supporting the prescription of lower dialysate Na+ in salt-overloaded children on HD, while improved Na+ removal may be achieved in children on PD with an individual adaptation of dwell time and volume and with icodextrin use during the long dwell.

Peritoneal equilibration testing: Your questions answered

The peritoneal equilibration test (PET), first described in 1987, is a semiquantitative assessment of peritoneal transfer characteristics in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. It is typically performed as a 4-h exchange using 2.27/2.5% dextrose dialysate with serial measurements of blood and dialysate creatinine, urea, and glucose concentrations. The percentage absorption of glucose and D/P creatinine ratio are used to determine peritoneal solute transfer rates. It is used to both help guide peritoneal dialysis prescriptions and to prognosticate. There are several derivative tests which have been described in the literature. In this review, we describe the original PET, the various iterations of the PET, the information gleaned, and the use in the setting of poor solute clearance and in the diagnosis of membrane dysfunction, and limitations of the PET.

Factors related to ultrafiltration volume with icodextrin dialysate use in children

BACKGROUND

Icodextrin has a lower absorption rate, and icodextrin peritoneal dialysate contributes to more water removal than glucose dialysate in patients with high peritoneal permeability. There are limited data on icodextrin dialysate use in children.

METHODS

This study included all pediatric patients who received peritoneal equilibration tests and peritoneal dialysis with icodextrin dialysate at the study center. The factors related to ultrafiltration volume with icodextrin dialysate with long dwell time were statistically analyzed. Then the ultrafiltration volume with icodextrin and medium-concentration glucose dialysate was compared in individual cycles in the same patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-six samples were included in the icodextrin group, and nine samples were used to compare the ultrafiltration volume with icodextrin and glucose dialysate. Dwell time, D/P-creatinine, D/D₀-glucose, age, height, and weight correlated significantly with the ultrafiltration volume of icodextrin dialysate (p < 0.05). A dwell volume equal to or more than 550 mL/m² was associated with a significantly higher ultrafiltration volume than a lower dwell volume (p = 0.039). Multiple regression analysis revealed that dwell time (p = 0.038) and height (p < 0.01) correlated with ultrafiltration volume significantly. In addition, the ultrafiltration volume was superior (p < 0.01), and dwell time was longer (p = 0.02), with icodextrin dialysate than with medium-concentration glucose dialysate.

CONCLUSIONS

The ultrafiltration volume with icodextrin dialysate decreases in patients with small stature. Providing sufficient dwell time and volume is important for maximal water removal even in children. Ultrafiltration volume is superior with icodextrin than medium-concentration glucose dialysate for long dwell times. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Current clinical practice in adapted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD)-A prospective, non-interventional study

Adapted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD), comprising a sequence of dwells with different durations and fill volumes, has been shown to enhance both ultrafiltration and solute clearance compared to standard peritoneal dialysis with constant time and volume dwells. The aim of this non-interventional study was to describe the different prescription patterns used in aAPD in clinical practice and to observe outcomes characterizing volume status, dialysis efficiency, and residual renal function over 1 year. Prevalent and incident, adult aAPD patients were recruited during routine clinic visits, and aAPD prescription, volume status, residual renal function and laboratory data were documented at baseline and every quarter thereafter for 1 year. Treatments were prescribed according to the nephrologist's medical judgement in accordance with each center's clinical routine. Of 180 recruited patients, 160 were analyzed. 27 different aAPD prescription patterns were identified. 79 patients (49.4%) received 2 small, short dwells followed by 3 long, large dwells. During follow-up, volume status changed only marginally, with visit mean values ranging between 1.59 (95% confidence interval: 1.19; 1.99) and 1.97 (1.33; 2.61) L. Urine output and creatinine clearance decreased significantly, accompanied by reductions in ultrafiltration and Kt/V. 25 patients (15.6%) received a renal transplant and 15 (9.4%) were changed to hemodialysis. Options for individualization offered by aAPD are actually used in practice for optimized treatment. Changes observed in renal function and dialysis efficiency measures reflect the natural course of chronic kidney disease. No safety events were observed during the study period.

Traduction des Recommandations de l'ISPD pour l'évaluation du dysfonctionnement de la membrane péritonéale chez l'adulte

Informations concernant cette traductionDans le cadre d’un accord de partenariat entre l’ISPD et le RDPLF, le RDPLF est le traducteur français officiel des recommandations de l’ISPD. La traduction ne donne lieu à aucune compensation financière de la part de chaque société et le RDPLF s’est engagé à traduire fidèlement le texte original sous la responsabilité de deux néphrologues connus pour leur expertise dans le domaine. Avant publication le texte a été soumis à l’accord de l’ISPD. La traduction est disponible sur le site de l’ISPD et dans le Bulletin de la Dialyse à Domicile.Le texte est, comme l’original, libremement téléchargeable sous licence copyright CC By 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Cette traduction est destinée à aider les professionnels de la communauté francophone à prendre connaissance des recommandations de l’ISPD dans leur langue maternelle. Toute référence dans un article doit se faire au texte original en accès libre :Peritoneal Dialysis International https://doi.org/10.1177/0896860820982218 Dans les articles rédigés pour des revues françaises, conserver la référence à la version originale anglaise ci dessus, mais ajouter «version française  https://doi.org/10.25796/bdd.v4i3.62673"»TraducteursDr Christian Verger, néphrologue, président du RDPLFRDPLF, 30 rue Sere Depoin, 95300 Pontoise – FranceProfesseur Max Dratwa, néphrologueHôpital Universitaire Brugmann – Bruxelles – Belgique

ISPD recommendations for the evaluation of peritoneal membrane dysfunction in adults: Classification, measurement, interpretation and rationale for intervention

Lay summary

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) uses the peritoneal membrane for dialysis. The peritoneal membrane is a thin layer of tissue that lines the abdomen. The lining is used as a filter to help remove extra fluid and poisonous waste from the blood. Everybody is unique. What is normal for one person’s membrane may be very different from another person’s. The kidney care team wants to provide each person with the best dialysis prescription for them and to do this they must evaluate the person’s peritoneal lining. Sometimes dialysis treatment itself can cause the membrane to change after some years. This means more assessments (evaluations) will be needed to determine whether the person’s peritoneal membrane has changed. Changes in the membrane may require changes to the dialysis prescription. This is needed to achieve the best dialysis outcomes. A key tool for these assessments is the peritoneal equilibration test (PET). It is a simple, standardized and reproducible tool. This tool is used to measure the peritoneal function soon after the start of dialysis. The goal is to understand how well the peritoneal membrane works at the start of dialysis. Later on in treatment, the PET helps to monitor changes in peritoneal function. If there are changes between assessments causing problems, the PET data may explain the cause of the dysfunction. This may be used to change the dialysis prescription to achieve the best outcomes. The most common problem with the peritoneal membrane occurs when fluid is not removed as well as it should be. This happens when toxins (poisons) in the blood cross the membrane more quickly than they should. This is referred to as a fast peritoneal solute transfer rate (PSTR). Since more efficient fluid removal is associated with better outcomes, developing a personal PD prescription based on the person’s PSTR is critically important. A less common problem happens when the membrane fails to work properly (also called membrane dysfunction) because the peritoneal membrane is less efficient, either at the start of treatment or developing after some years. If membrane dysfunction gets worse over time, then this is associated with progressive damage, scarring and thickening of the membrane. This problem can be identified through another change of the PET. It is called reduced ‘sodium dip’. Membrane dysfunction of this type is more difficult to treat and has many implications for the individual. If the damage is major, the person may need to stop PD. They would need to begin haemodialysis treatment (also spelled hemodialysis). This is a very important and emotional decision for individuals with kidney failure. Any decision that involves stopping PD therapy or transitioning to haemodialysis therapy should be made jointly between the clinical team, the person on dialysis and a caregiver, if requested. Although evidence is lacking about how often tests should be performed to determine peritoneal function, it seems reasonable to repeat them whenever there is difficulty in removing the amount of fluid necessary for maintaining the health and well-being of the individual. Whether routine evaluation of membrane function is associated with better outcomes has not been studied. Further research is needed to answer this important question as national policies in many parts of the world and the COVID-19 has placed a greater emphasis and new incentives encouraging the greater adoption of home dialysis therapies, especially PD. For Chinese and Spanish Translation of the Lay Summary, see Online Supplement Appendix 1.

Key recommendations

Guideline 1:

A pathophysiological taxonomy: A pathophysiological classification of membrane dysfunction, which provides mechanistic links to functional characteristics, should be used when prescribing individualized dialysis or when planning modality transfer (e.g. to automated peritoneal dialysis (PD) or haemodialysis) in the context of shared and informed decision-making with the person on PD, taking individual circumstances and treatment goals into account. (practice point)

Guideline 2a:

Identification of fast peritoneal solute transfer rate (PSTR): It is recommended that the PSTR is determined from a 4-h peritoneal equilibration test (PET), using either 2.5%/2.27% or 4.25%/3.86% dextrose/glucose concentration and creatinine as the index solute. (practice point) This should be done early in the course dialysis treatment (between 6 weeks and 12 weeks) (GRADE 1A) and subsequently when clinically indicated. (practice point)

Guideline 2b:

Clinical implications and mitigation of fast solute transfer: A faster PSTR is associated with lower survival on PD. (GRADE 1A) This risk is in part due to the lower ultrafiltration (UF) and increased net fluid reabsorption that occurs when the PSTR is above the average value. The resulting lower net UF can be avoided by shortening glucose-based exchanges, using a polyglucose solution (icodextrin), and/or prescribing higher glucose concentrations. (GRADE 1A) Compared to glucose, use of icodextrin can translate into improved fluid status and fewer episodes of fluid overload. (GRADE 1A) Use of automated PD and icodextrin may mitigate the mortality risk associated with fast PSTR. (practice point)

Guideline 3:

Recognizing low UF capacity: This is easy to measure and a valuable screening test. Insufficient UF should be suspected when either (a) the net UF from a 4-h PET is <400 ml (3.86% glucose/4.25% dextrose) or <100 ml (2.27% glucose /2.5% dextrose), (GRADE 1B) and/or (b) the daily UF is insufficient to maintain adequate fluid status. (practice point) Besides membrane dysfunction, low UF capacity can also result from mechanical problems, leaks or increased fluid absorption across the peritoneal membrane not explained by fast PSTR.

Guideline 4a:

Diagnosing intrinsic membrane dysfunction (manifesting as low osmotic conductance to glucose) as a cause of UF insufficiency: When insufficient UF is suspected, the 4-h PET should be supplemented by measurement of the sodium dip at 1 h using a 3.86% glucose/4.25% dextrose exchange for diagnostic purposes. A sodium dip ≤5 mmol/L and/or a sodium sieving ratio ≤0.03 at 1 h indicates UF insufficiency. (GRADE 2B)

Guideline 4b:

Clinical implications of intrinsic membrane dysfunction (de novo or acquired): in the absence of residual kidney function, this is likely to necessitate the use of hypertonic glucose exchanges and possible transfer to haemodialysis. Acquired membrane injury, especially in the context of prolonged time on treatment, should prompt discussions about the risk of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. (practice point)

Guideline 5:

Additional membrane function tests: measures of peritoneal protein loss, intraperitoneal pressure and more complex tests that estimate osmotic conductance and ‘lymphatic’ reabsorption are not recommended for routine clinical practice but remain valuable research methods. (practice point)

Guideline 6:

Socioeconomic considerations: When resource constraints prevent the use of routine tests, consideration of membrane function should still be part of the clinical management and may be inferred from the daily UF in response to the prescription. (practice point)

ISPD guidelines for peritoneal dialysis in acute kidney injury: 2020 Update (paediatrics)

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Peritoneal dialysis is a suitable renal replacement therapy modality for treatment of acute kidney injury in children. (1C)2. Access and fluid delivery for acute PD in children.2.1 We recommend a Tenckhoff catheter inserted by a surgeon in the operating theatre as the optimal choice for PD access. (1B) (optimal)2.2 Insertion of a PD catheter with an insertion kit and using Seldinger technique is an acceptable alternative. (1C) (optimal)2.3 Interventional radiological placement of PD catheters combining ultrasound and fluoroscopy is an acceptable alternative. (1D) (optimal)2.4 Rigid catheters placed using a stylet should only be used when soft Seldinger catheters are not available, with the duration of use limited to <3 days to minimize the risk of complications. (1C) (minimum standard)2.5 Improvised PD catheters should only be used when no standard PD access is available. (practice point) (minimum standard)2.6 We recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion. (1B) (optimal)2.7 A closed delivery system with a Y connection should be used. (1A) (optimal) A system utilizing buretrols to measure fill and drainage volumes should be used when performing manual PD in small children. (practice point) (optimal)2.8 In resource limited settings, an open system with spiking of bags may be used; however, this should be designed to limit the number of potential sites for contamination and ensure precise measurement of fill and drainage volumes. (practice point) (minimum standard)2.9 Automated peritoneal dialysis is suitable for the management of paediatric AKI, except in neonates for whom fill volumes are too small for currently available machines. (1D)3. Peritoneal dialysis solutions for acute PD in children3.1 The composition of the acute peritoneal dialysis solution should include dextrose in a concentration designed to achieve the target ultrafiltration. (practice point)3.2  Once potassium levels in the serum fall below 4 mmol/l, potassium should be added to dialysate using sterile technique. (practice point) (optimal) If no facilities exist to measure the serum potassium, consideration should be given for the empiric addition of potassium to the dialysis solution after 12 h of continuous PD to achieve a dialysate concentration of 3-4 mmol/l. (practice point) (minimum standard)3.3  Serum concentrations of electrolytes should be measured 12 hourly for the first 24 h and daily once stable. (practice point) (optimal) In resource poor settings, sodium and potassium should be measured daily, if practical. (practice point) (minimum standard)3.4  In the setting of hepatic dysfunction, hemodynamic instability and persistent/worsening metabolic acidosis, it is preferable to use bicarbonate containing solutions. (1D) (optimal) Where these solutions are not available, the use of lactate containing solutions is an alternative. (2D) (minimum standard)3.5  Commercially prepared dialysis solutions should be used. (1C) (optimal) However, where resources do not permit this, locally prepared fluids may be used with careful observation of sterile preparation procedures and patient outcomes (e.g. rate of peritonitis). (1C) (minimum standard)4. Prescription of acute PD in paediatric patients4.1 The initial fill volume should be limited to 10-20 ml/kg to minimize the risk of dialysate leakage; a gradual increase in the volume to approximately 30-40 ml/kg (800-1100 ml/m²) may occur as tolerated by the patient. (practice point)4.2 The initial exchange duration, including inflow, dwell and drain times, should generally be every 60-90 min; gradual prolongation of the dwell time can occur as fluid and solute removal targets are achieved. In neonates and small infants, the cycle duration may need to be reduced to achieve adequate ultrafiltration. (practice point)4.3 Close monitoring of total fluid intake and output is mandatory with a goal to achieve and maintain normotension and euvolemia. (1B)4.4 Acute PD should be continuous throughout the full 24-h period for the initial 1-3 days of therapy. (1C)4.5  Close monitoring of drug dosages and levels, where available, should be conducted when providing acute PD. (practice point)5. Continuous flow peritoneal dialysis (CFPD)5.1   Continuous flow peritoneal dialysis can be considered as a PD treatment option when an increase in solute clearance and ultrafiltration is desired but cannot be achieved with standard acute PD. Therapy with this technique should be considered experimental since experience with the therapy is limited. (practice point) 5.2  Continuous flow peritoneal dialysis can be considered for dialysis therapy in children with AKI when the use of only very small fill volumes is preferred (e.g. children with high ventilator pressures). (practice point).

Silencing of lncRNA 6030408B16RIK prevents ultrafiltration failure in peritoneal dialysis via microRNA-326-3p-mediated WISP2 down-regulation

Continuous exposure to peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluid results in peritoneal fibrosis and ultimately causes ultrafiltration failure. Noncoding RNAs, including long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs), have been reported to participate in ultrafiltration failure in PD. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the mechanism of lncRNA 6030408B16RIK in association with miR-326-3p in ultrafiltration failure in PD. Peritoneal tissues were collected from uremic patients with or without PD. A uremic rat model with PD was first established by 5/6 nephrectomy. The relationship between lncRNA 6030408B16RIK, miR-326-3p and WISP2 was identified using luciferase reporter, RNA pull-down and RIP assays. After ectopic expression and depletion treatments in cells, expression of α-SMA, phosphorylated β-catenin, FSP1, E-cadherin and Vimentin was evaluated by RT-qPCR and Western blot analyses, and Collagen III and CD31 expression by immunohistochemistry. Ultrafiltration volume and glucose transport capacity were assessed by the peritoneal equilibration test. Expression of lncRNA 6030408B16RIK and WISP2 was up-regulated and miR-326-3p expression was poor in peritoneal tissues of uremic PD patients and model rats. LncRNA 6030408B16RIK competitively bound to miR-326-3p and then elevated WISP2 expression. Silencing of lncRNA 6030408B16RIK and WISP2 or overexpression of miR-326-3p was shown to decrease the expression of α-SMA, phosphorylated β-catenin, FSP1, Vimentin, Collagen III and CD31, while reducing glucose transport capacity and increasing E-cadherin expression and ultrafiltration volume in uremic PD rats. In summary, lncRNA 6030408B16RIK silencing exerts an anti-fibrotic effect on uremic PD rats with ultrafiltration failure by inactivating the WISP2-dependent Wnt/β-catenin pathway via miR-326-3p.

Characterization of sodium removal to ultrafiltration volume in a peritoneal dialysis outpatient cohort

Background

Failure to control volume is the second most common cause of peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure. Sodium is primarily removed by convection, but according to the three-pore model, water and sodium movements are not necessarily concordant. We wished to determine factors increasing sodium to water clearance in clinical practice.

Methods

We reviewed 24-h peritoneal dialytic sodium removal (DSR) and ultrafiltration (UF) volume in consecutive PD patients attending for routine assessment of peritoneal membrane function and adequacy testing. We used a regression model with the DSR/UF ratio as the dependent variable. A second model with DSR as the dependent variable and interaction testing for UF was used as sensitivity analysis.

Results

We included 718 adult PD patients. Mean values were 51.8 ± 64.6 mmol/day and 512 ± 517 mL/day for DSR and UF, respectively. In multivariable analysis, DSR/UF ratio was positively associated with transport type (fast versus slow, P < 0.001), serum sodium (P < 0.001) and diabetes (P = 0.026), and negatively associated with PD mode [automated PD versus continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), P < 0.001] and the use of 2.27% glucose dialysate (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed positive interaction with UF for transport type (P < 0.001) and serum sodium (P = 0.032) and negative interaction for PD mode (P < 0.001) and cycles number (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

CAPD, fast transport and high serum sodium allow relatively more sodium to be removed compared with water. Icodextrin has no effect on sodium removal once confounders have been accounted for. Although widely used in the assessment of PD patients, UF should not be considered as a surrogate for DSR in clinical practice.

Chronic dialysis in children and adolescents: challenges and outcomes

Chronic dialysis is rarely required during childhood. Despite technical advances that have facilitated the treatment of even the youngest children, morbidity and mortality remain higher with chronic dialysis than after renal transplantation. The cost of equipment and skilled personnel to provide the service compromises the availability of such dialysis in parts of the world where financial resources are constrained. This Review describes the incidence and causes of end-stage kidney disease in children on long-term dialysis, and highlights management issues, including dialysis modality selection, complications, and patient outcome data.