Fluid state and blood pressure control: no differences between APD and CAPD

Research hotspots and emerging trends of automated peritoneal dialysis: A bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2020

BACKGROUND

The implementation of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) has considerably increased in many countries. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to evaluate the accumulating studies on APD in the last two decades quantitatively and qualitatively.

METHODS

Publications regarding APD research between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database by using the index term "automated peritoneal dialysis." CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and an online platform were employed to analyze the number of publications and the collaboration relationships between countries, institutions, authors, and co-cited journals. Cluster analysis and burst keywords detection were performed on co-cited references and keywords, respectively.

RESULTS

We obtained a record of 545 publications related to APD in total. The United States was the country that contributes most, and Baxter Healthcare Corporation was the leading institution. Peritoneal Dialysis International was the most active journals in this field. Claudio Ranco was the most productive author, and Simon J Davies ranked the first in the cited authors. Co-cited reference cluster analysis and high frequency keywords showed that survival, ultrafiltration and peritonitis are continuous hot topics. While remote monitoring (RM) and telemedicine may be APD research frontiers according to burst keywords detection.

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric study provides comprehensive overview on the publications of APD over the past two decades. These findings help to identify the hotspots and explore new directions for future research. RM has become an emerging trend in APD field.

A comparative analysis of ambulatory BP profile and arterial stiffness between CAPD and APD

Prior studies have associated automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) with less effective volume and blood pressure (BP) control as compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Our study aimed to compare the volume status, ambulatory BP profile and severity of arterial stiffness between patients treated with CAPD versus APD. In a case-control design, 28 CAPD patients were matched in 1:1 ratio with 28 controls receiving APD for age, gender and diabetic status. Body composition was assessed with the method of bioimpendence spectroscopy. Twenty-four hours ambulatory BP monitoring with the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Germany) was performed to determine peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters, heart rate-adjusted augmentation index (AIx75) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). Standardized office BP, antihypertensive medication use and extracellular-to-total body water ratio did not differ between CAPD and APD groups. Twenty-four hours brachial systolic BP (129.0 ± 17.3 vs. 128.1 ± 14.2 mmHg, P = 0.83) and 24-h aortic systolic BP (116.9 ± 16.4 vs. 116.4 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.87) were similar in patients treated with CAPD versus APD. Similarly, there was no significant difference between PD modalities in severity of arterial stiffness, as assessed with 24-h AIx75 (24.8 ± 8.9 vs. 22.5 ± 9.1, P = 0.36) and 24-h PWV (9.1 ± 2.4 vs. 8.8 ± 2.1 m/s, P = 0.61). The present study suggests that there is no difference in peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters as well as in the severity of arterial stiffness between CAPD and APD. However, these observations should be interpreted within the context of clinical characteristics of patients included in this case-control study. The comparative effectiveness of these 2 PD modalities warrants further investigation in larger longitudinal studies.

APD or CAPD: one glove does not fit all

The use of Automated Peritoneal Dialysis (APD) in its various forms has increased over the past few years mainly in developed countries. This could be attributed to improved cycler design, apparent lifestyle benefits and the ability to achieve adequacy and ultrafiltration targets. However, the dilemma of choosing the superior modality between APD and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) has not yet been resolved. When it comes to fast transporters and assisted PD, APD is certainly considered the most suitable Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) modality. Improved patients’ compliance, lower intraperitoneal pressure and possibly lower incidence of peritonitis have been also associated with APD. However, concerns regarding increased cost, a more rapid decline in residual renal function, inadequate sodium removal and disturbed sleep are APD’s setbacks. Besides APD superiority over CAPD in fast transporters, the other medical advantages of APD still remain controversial. In any case, APD should be readily available for all patients starting PD and the most important indication for its implementation remains patient’s choice.

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.

Comparison of sodium removal in peritoneal dialysis patients treated by continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal fluid balance for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients requires both water and sodium removal. Previous studies have variously reported that continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) removes more or equivalent amounts of sodium than automated PD (APD) cyclers. We therefore wished to determine peritoneal dialysate losses with different PD treatments.

METHODS

Peritoneal and urinary sodium losses were measured in 24-h collections of urine and PD effluent in patients attending for their first assessment of peritoneal membrane function. We adjusted fluid and sodium losses for CAPD patients for the flush before fill technique.

RESULTS

We reviewed the results from 659 patients, mean age 57 ± 16 years, 56.3% male, 38.9% diabetic, 24.0% treated by CAPD, 22.5% by APD and 53.5% APD with a day-time exchange, with icodextrin prescribed to 72.8% and 22.7 g/L glucose to 31.7%. Ultrafiltration was greatest for CAPD 650 (300-1100) vs 337 (103-598) APD p < 0.001, vs 474 (171-830) mL/day for APD with a day exchange. CAPD removed most sodium 79 (33-132) vs 23 (- 2 to 51) APD p < 0.001, and 51 (9-91) for APD with a day exchange, and after adjustment for the CAPD flush before fill 57 (20-113), p < 0.001 vs APD. APD patients with a day exchanged used more hypertonic glucose dialysates [0 (0-5) vs CAPD 0 (0-1) L], p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

CAPD provides greater ultrafiltration and sodium removal than APD cyclers, even after adjusting for the flush-before fill, despite greater hypertonic usage by APD cyclers. Ultrafiltration volume and sodium removal were similar between CAPD and APD with a day fill.

Patient-Centered Approach for Hypertension Management in End-Stage Kidney Disease: Art or Science?

Hypertension is present in most patients with end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis and management of hypertension is a routine but challenging task in everyday dialysis care. End-stage kidney disease patients are uniquely heterogeneous individuals with significant variations in demographic characteristics, functional capacity, and presence of concomitant comorbid conditions and their severity. Therefore, these patients require personalized approaches in addressing not only hypertension but related illnesses, while also accounting for overall prognosis and projected longevity. There are only limited clinical trial data to guide individualized blood pressure management and current guidelines are based predominantly on observational evidence and expert opinions. Inthis review, we reflect on the shortcomings of peridialytic blood pressure recordings and discuss an important paradigm shift toward using out-of-dialysis blood pressure for evaluating hypertension control and for making treatment decisions. In addition, we provide our personal view on blood pressure goals and summarize nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options for individualized management of hypertension in end-stage kidney disease.

Hypertension in dialysis patients: a consensus document by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

In patients with end-stage renal disease treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, hypertension is very common and often poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) recordings obtained before or after hemodialysis display a J-shaped or U-shaped association with cardiovascular events and survival, but this most likely reflects the low accuracy of these measurements and the peculiar hemodynamic setting related with dialysis treatment. Elevated BP by home or ambulatory BP monitoring is clearly associated with shorter survival. Sodium and volume excess is the prominent mechanism of hypertension in dialysis patients, but other pathways, such as arterial stiffness, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems, endothelial dysfunction, sleep apnea and the use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents may also be involved. Nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sodium and volume excess are fundamental for hypertension control in this population. If BP remains elevated after appropriate treatment of sodium-volume excess, the use of antihypertensive agents is necessary. Drug treatment in the dialysis population should take into consideration the patient's comorbidities and specific characteristics of each agent, such as dialysability. This document is an overview of the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of hypertension in patients on dialysis, aiming to offer the renal physician practical recommendations based on current knowledge and expert opinion and to highlight areas for future research.

Hypertension in dialysis patients: a consensus document by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, hypertension is common and often poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) recordings obtained before or after haemodialysis display a J- or U-shaped association with cardiovascular events and survival, but this most likely reflects the low accuracy of these measurements and the peculiar haemodynamic setting related to dialysis treatment. Elevated BP detected by home or ambulatory BP monitoring is clearly associated with shorter survival. Sodium and volume excess is the prominent mechanism of hypertension in dialysis patients, but other pathways, such as arterial stiffness, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems, endothelial dysfunction, sleep apnoea and the use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents may also be involved. Non-pharmacologic interventions targeting sodium and volume excess are fundamental for hypertension control in this population. If BP remains elevated after appropriate treatment of sodium and volume excess, the use of antihypertensive agents is necessary. Drug treatment in the dialysis population should take into consideration the patient's comorbidities and specific characteristics of each agent, such as dialysability. This document is an overview of the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of hypertension in patients on dialysis, aiming to offer the renal physician practical recommendations based on current knowledge and expert opinion and to highlight areas for future research.

Comparative outcomes between continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis: a narrative review

Automated methods for delivering peritoneal dialysis (PD) to persons with end-stage renal disease continue to gain popularity worldwide, particularly in developed countries. However, the endeavor to automate the PD process has not been advanced on the strength of high-level evidence for superiority of automated over manual methods. This article summarizes available studies that have shed light on the evidence that compares the association of treatment with continuous ambulatory PD or automated PD (APD) with clinically meaningful outcomes. Published evidence, primarily from observational studies, has been unable to demonstrate a consistent difference in residual kidney function loss rate, peritonitis rate, maintenance of euvolemia, technique survival, mortality, or health-related quality of life in individuals undergoing continuous ambulatory PD versus APD. At the same time, the future of APD technology appears ripe for further improvement, such as the incorporation of voice commands and expanded use of telemedicine. Given these considerations, it appears that patient choice should drive the decision about PD modality.

Sodium removal and peritoneal dialysis modalities: no differences with optimal prescription of icodextrin

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) has been considered as a more efficient modality for sodium removal than automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), due to the longer dwell times and the sodium sieving phenomenon. However, because studies regarding sodium removal in peritoneal dialysis (PD) report rather controversial results and carry various methodological flaws, it remains uncertain whether they offer enough significant information regarding PD prescription and therapy. The aim of the present observational cross-sectional study was to evaluate the impact of the optimal prescription of CAPD and APD, regarding solute clearances and daily ultrafiltrate, on daily sodium removal. Forty-six (46) patients aged 52.3 ± 14 years were studied. Twenty-six (26) patients were subjected to CAPD, and 20 patients were subjected to APD. Ten (10) patients per group were prescribed icodextrin for the long dwell to achieve optimal adequacy and ultrafiltration (UF) targets. CAPD patients removed a higher, albeit not statistically significant, daily amount of sodium (131.7 ± 98.2 mmol) compared with APD patients (79.4 ± 129.2 mmol). Their Kt/V urea was lower (1.48 ± 0.3 vs. 2.17 ± 0.33, P < 0.05), and there were no differences on daily UF (1119 ± 533 vs. 1005 ± 517 mL). In both groups, icodextrin use for the long dwell resulted in equal sodium removal with that of patients not prescribed icodextrin. Our results, derived from an unselected PD population, indicate that although classic CAPD may be more efficient for sodium removal than APD, the use of icodextrin as an adjuvant for higher daily UF not only increases solute clearance but also removes more sodium for both modalities. In addition, calculations of sodium removal in PD do not seem to benefit the everyday clinical practice, provided that PD patients can achieve the adequacy targets and present optimal daily UF without signs of volume overload.