Understand the difference between clinical measured ultrafiltrationand real ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis

Background

It has been noticed for years that ultrafiltration (UF) is important for survival in peritoneal dialysis. On the other hand, precise and convenient UF measurement suitable for patient daily practice is not as straight forward as it is to measure UF in the lab. Both overfill and flush before fill used to be source of measurement error for clinical practice. However, controversy finding around UF in peritoneal dialysis still exists in some situation. The current study was to understand the difference between clinical measured UF and real UF. The effect of evaporation and specific gravity in clinical UF measurement were tested in the study.

Methods

Four different brands of dialysate were purchased from the market. The freshest dialysate available in the market were intentionally picked. The bags were all 2 L, 2.5% dextrose and traditional lactate buffered PD solution. They were stored in four different conditions with controlled temperature and humidity. The bags were weighted at baseline, 6 months and 12 months of storage. Specific gravity was measured in mixed 24 h drainage dialysate from 261 CAPD patients when they come for their routine solute clearance test.

Results

There was significant difference in dialysate bag weight at baseline between brands. The weight declined significantly after 12 month’s storage. The weight loss was greater in higher temperature and lower humidity. The dialysate in non-PVC package lose less weight than PVC package. The specific gravity of dialysate drainage was significantly higher than pure water and it was related to dialysate protein concentration.

Conclusion

Storage condition and duration, as well as the type of dialysate package have significant impact in dialysate bag weight before use. Evaporation is likely to be the reason behind. The fact that specific gravity of dialysate drainage is higher than 1 g/ml overestimates UF in manual exchanges, which contributes to systemic measurement error of ultrafiltration in CAPD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03864120 (March 8, 2019) (Understand the Difference Between Clinical Measured Ultrafiltration and Real Ultrafiltration).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02589-3.

Methodology of Assessment of Fluid Status and Ultrafiltration Problems

Loss of sodium and water excretion with disruption of volume homeostasis is a crucial abnormality of end-stage renal failure. Fluid management is a fundamental function of dialysis therapy, but studies show frequent occult fluid overload, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction in peritoneal dialysis. A rigorous approach to fluid management in PD can achieve excellent fluid, hypertension, and cardiovascular results in clinical practice. The present article explores the reasons for fluid overload and poor ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis patients and discusses optimal assessment and management of these problems.

Blood Pressure, Volume, and Sodium Control in an Automated Peritoneal Dialysis Population

Objectives

To examine the control of blood pressure and volume, and the role of sodium removal in a single, large, contemporary, automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) population where icodextrin is used liberally and there is a policy to avoid long duration glucose-based daytime dwells.

Design

Observational cross-sectional study.

Setting

A university hospital.

Patients

56 APD patients, with a mean duration on peritoneal dialysis of 1.9 years; 50% were prescribed icodextrin.

Main Outcome Measures

Blood pressure, extracellular water volume (ECW)-to-intracellular water volume (ICW) ratio, and total (peritoneal and urinary) sodium removal.

Results

Sodium Removal: Mean total sodium removal, while low at 102.9 ± 64.6 mmol/day, showed a wide range, with 41% having a sodium removal of >120 mmol/day. Total sodium removal correlated with total body water, ECW, and ICW ( p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.025, respectively), as well as with height and weight ( p < 0.06, p < 0.01 respectively). On multivariate analysis, only ultra-filtration volume and urine volume were significantly associated with total sodium removal ( r2 = 0.67, p < 0.0001 for both). There was also a correlation between sodium removal and urea nitrogen appearance ( r2 = 0.31, p < 0.001), with urea nitrogen appearance in turn being closely correlated with ICW ( p < 0.001). Volume Status: The ECW/ICW ratio was 0.88 ± 0.17, which was not significantly different to that found in hemodialysis patients without clinical evidence of fluid overload, either predialysis (0.96 ± 0.16) or postdialysis (0.92 ± 0.16); p = 0.07 and 0.36 respectively. Blood Pressure: Mean ± standard deviation systolic blood pressure (BP) was 111.9 ± 18.2 mmHg and diastolic BP was 63.3 ± 11.9 mmHg, with only 4 (7%) patients having a systolic BP > 140 mmHg and 1 (2%) having a diastolic BP > 80 mmHg. Median number of antihypertensives was 1 per day. Blood pressure control and ECW/ICW ratio were similar in those with sodium removal >120 mmol/day compared to those with sodium removal ≤120 mmol/day ( p = 0.39 for SBP, p = 0.70 for diastolic B P, p = 0.24 for ECW/ICW).

Conclusions

We have shown that good blood pressure and volume control is achievable in a large contemporary APD population with liberal use of icodextrin and avoidance of long daytime glucose-based dwells. Neither low nor high sodium removal was associated with more frequent hypertension or volume expansion.

Is Adapted APD Theoretically More Efficient than Conventional APD?

Background

A modified version of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) using not only variable dwell times but also variable fill volumes has been tested against conventional APD (cAPD) with fixed dwell volumes in a randomized controlled clinical study. The results have indicated that the modified schedule for APD, denoted adapted APD (aAPD), can lead to improved small solute clearances, and, above all, a markedly increased sodium removal (NaR). To theoretically test these results, we have modeled aAPD vs cAPD in computer simulations using the 3-pore model (TPM).

Methods

The TPM, modified by including a transient, initial inflation of small solute mass transfer area coefficients (PS values), was employed. For simulations of osmotic ultrafiltration (UF), the TPM uses a constantly inflated value for PS for glucose and also a reduced value for PS for Na+, setting the peritoneal lymphatic reabsorption term at 0.3 mL/min. The simulations were performed by assuming that increases in intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure (IPP) are transmitted to the capillary level ( via vein compression) and therefore do not significantly affect the Starling balance. Furthermore, the effective peritoneal surface area (A) was set to be variable as a function of intraperitoneal volume (IPV).

Results

The simulations demonstrated a minor improvement of small solute clearances (∼0.7 – 1.6%) and a very small improvement of UF and NaR in aAPD compared to cAPD.

Conclusions

Due mainly to the increased fill volumes in 3 out of 5 dwells in aAPD, this modality caused minor increases in small solute clearances and marginal effects on UF and NaR. The computer simulations point to a need for accurate sodium determinations in aAPD, considering all the methodological problems and pitfalls relevant to determining dialysate Na+ concentrations and peritoneal sodium mass balance.

Peritoneal Equilibration Test and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although a peritoneal equilibration test yields data on three parameters (4-hour dialysate/plasma creatinine, 4- to 0-hour dialysate glucose, and 4-hour ultrafiltration volume), all studies have focused on the prognostic value of dialysate/plasma creatinine for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Because dialysate 4- to 0-hour glucose and ultrafiltration volume may be superior in predicting daily ultrafiltration, the likely mechanism for the association of peritoneal equilibration test results with outcomes, we hypothesized that they are superior to dialysate/plasma creatinine for risk prediction.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We examined unadjusted and adjusted associations of three peritoneal equilibration test parameters with all-cause mortality, technique failure, and hospitalization rate in 10,142 patients on peritoneal dialysis treated between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011 in 764 dialysis facilities operated by a single large dialysis organization in the United States, with a median follow-up period of 15.8 months; 87% were treated with automated peritoneal dialysis.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical parameters explained only 8% of the variability in dialysate/plasma creatinine. There was a linear association between dialysate/plasma creatinine and mortality (adjusted hazards ratio per 0.1 unit higher, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.13) and hospitalization rate (adjusted incidence rate ratio per 0.1 unit higher, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.06). Dialysate/plasma creatinine and dialysate glucose were highly correlated (r=-0.84) and yielded similar risk prediction. Ultrafiltration volume was inversely related with hospitalization rate but not with all-cause mortality. None of the parameters were associated with technique failure. Adding 4- to 0-hour dialysate glucose, ultrafiltration volume, or both did not result in any improvement in risk prediction with dialysate/plasma creatinine alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis from a large contemporary cohort treated primarily with automated peritoneal dialysis validates dialysate/plasma creatinine as a robust predictor of outcomes in patients treated with peritoneal dialysis.

Clinical Validation of a Peritoneal Dialysis Prescription Model in the PatientOnLine Software

Peritoneal transport characteristics and residual renal function require regular control and subsequent adjustment of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) prescription. Prescription models shall facilitate the prediction of the outcome of such adaptations for a given patient. In the present study, the prescription model implemented in the PatientOnLine software was validated in patients requiring a prescription change. This multicenter, international prospective cohort study with the aim to validate a PD prescription model included patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Patients were examined with the peritoneal function test (PFT) to determine the outcome of their current prescription and the necessity for a prescription change. For these patients, a new prescription was modeled using the PatientOnLine software (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany). Two to four weeks after implementation of the new PD regimen, a second PFT was performed. The validation of the prescription model included 54 patients. Predicted and measured peritoneal Kt/V were 1.52 ± 0.31 and 1.66 ± 0.35, and total (peritoneal + renal) Kt/V values were 1.96 ± 0.48 and 2.06 ± 0.44, respectively. Predicted and measured peritoneal creatinine clearances were 42.9 ± 8.6 and 43.0 ± 8.8 L/1.73 m(2)/week and total creatinine clearances were 65.3 ± 26.0 and 63.3 ± 21.8 L/1.73 m(2) /week, respectively. The analysis revealed a Pearson's correlation coefficient for peritoneal Kt/V of 0.911 and Lin's concordance coefficient of 0.829. The value of both coefficients was 0.853 for peritoneal creatinine clearance. Predicted and measured daily net ultrafiltration was 0.77 ± 0.49 and 1.16 ± 0.63 L/24 h, respectively. Pearson's correlation and Lin's concordance coefficient were 0.518 and 0.402, respectively. Predicted and measured peritoneal glucose absorption was 125.8 ± 38.8 and 79.9 ± 30.7 g/24 h, respectively, and Pearson's correlation and Lin's concordance coefficient were 0.914 and 0.477, respectively. With good predictability of peritoneal Kt/V and creatinine clearance, the present model provides support for individual dialysis prescription in clinical practice. Peritoneal glucose absorption and ultrafiltration are less predictable and are likely to be influenced by additional clinical factors to be taken into consideration.

Dialysis adequacy indices and body composition in male and female patients on peritoneal dialysis

OBJECTIVES

Creatinine clearance scaled to body surface area (BSA) and urea KT/V normalized to total body water (TBW) are used as indices for peritoneal dialysis (PD) adequacy. We investigated relationships of indices of dialysis adequacy (including KT/V, KT, clearance, dialysate over plasma concentration ratio) and anthropometric and body composition parameters (BSA, TBW, body mass index (BMI), weight, height, fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM)) in male and female patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

METHODS

Ninety-nine stable patients (56 males) performed four 24-hr collections of drained dialysate for four dialysis schedules with three daily exchanges of glucose 1.36% and one night exchange of either: 1) glucose 1.36%, 2) glucose 2.27%, 3) glucose 3.86% or 4) icodextrin 7.5%.

RESULTS

KT and dialysate over plasma concentration ratio, CD/CP, for urea and creatinine were similar for males and females and, in general, did not depend on body-size parameters including V (= TBW), which means that the overall capacity of the transport system in females and males is similar. However, after normalization of KT to V or 1.73/BSA yielding KT/V and creatinine clearance, Cl(1.73/BSA), respectively, the normalized indices were substantially higher in females than in males and correlated inversely with body-size parameters, especially in males.

CONCLUSIONS

As KT/V depends strongly on body size, treatment target values for KT/V should take body size and therefore also gender into account. As KT is less influenced by body size, body composition and gender, KT should be considered as a potential auxiliary index in PD.

Peritoneal dialysis--current status and future challenges

Peritoneal dialysis is now a well established, mature treatment modality for advanced chronic kidney disease. The medium term (at least 5 year) survival of patients on peritoneal dialysis is currently equivalent to that of those on haemodialysis, and is particularly good in patients who are new to renal replacement therapy and have less comorbidity. Nevertheless the modality needs to keep pace with the constantly evolving challenges associated with the provision and delivery of health care. These challenges, which are gradually converging at a global level, include ageing of the population, multimorbidity of patients, containment of cost, increasing self care and environmental issues. In this context, peritoneal dialysis faces particular challenges that include multiple barriers to the therapy and unsatisfactory and poorly defined technique survival as well as limitations relating to intrinsic aspects of the therapy, such as peritoneal membrane longevity and hypoalbuminaemia. To move the therapy forward and favourably influence health-care policy, the peritoneal dialysis community needs to integrate their research effort more effectively by undertaking clinically meaningful studies-with a strong focus on technique survival--that are supported by multidisciplinary expertise in patient-centred outcomes, study design and analysis.

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.

Threefold peritoneal test of osmotic conductance, ultrafiltration efficiency, and fluid absorption

BACKGROUND

Fluid removal during peritoneal dialysis depends on modifiable factors such as tonicity of dialysis fluids and intrinsic characteristics of the peritoneal transport barrier and the osmotic agent-for example, osmotic conductance, ultrafiltration efficiency, and peritoneal fluid absorption. The latter parameters cannot be derived from tests of the small-solute transport rate. We here propose a simple test that may provide information about those parameters.

METHODS

Volumes and glucose concentrations of drained dialysate obtained with 3 different combinations of glucose-based dialysis fluid (3 exchanges of 1.36% glucose during the day and 1 overnight exchange of either 1.36%, 2.27%, or 3.86% glucose) were measured in 83 continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients. Linear regression analyses of daily net ultrafiltration in relation to the average dialysate-to-plasma concentration gradient of glucose allowed for an estimation of the osmotic conductance of glucose and the peritoneal fluid absorption rate, and net ultrafiltration in relation to glucose absorption allowed for an estimation of the ultrafiltration effectiveness of glucose.

RESULTS

The osmotic conductance of glucose was 0.067 ± 0.042 (milliliters per minute divided by millimoles per milliliter), the ultrafiltration effectiveness of glucose was 16.77 ± 7.97 mL/g of absorbed glucose, and the peritoneal fluid absorption rate was 0.94 ± 0.97 mL/min (if estimated concomitantly with osmotic conductance) or 0.93 ± 0.75 mL/min (if estimated concomitantly with ultrafiltration effectiveness). These fluid transport parameters were independent of small-solute transport characteristics, but proportional to total body water estimated by bioimpedance.

CONCLUSIONS

By varying the glucose concentration in 1 of 4 daily exchanges, osmotic conductance, ultrafiltration efficiency, and peritoneal fluid absorption could be estimated in CAPD patients, yielding transport parameter values that were similar to those obtained by other, more sophisticated, methods.

Ultrafiltration and dialysis adequacy with various daily schedules of dialysis fluids

Dialysis regimens for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients vary with the need for fluid removal, but also because of concerns about the local and systemic consequences of high glucose exposure. The implications of various regimens for dialysis adequacy--that is, fluid and small-solute removal--are not always clear. We therefore analyzed ultrafiltration (UF) and adequacy indices for 4 different combinations of dialysis fluid. Collections of 24-hour dialysate and urine were carried out in 99 patients on CAPD. On 4 separate occasions, each patient performed 4 exchanges in 24 hours, including 3 daily exchanges with 1.36% glucose and 1 night exchange with either 1.36% glucose (G1 schedule), 2.27% glucose (G2 schedule), 3.86% glucose (G3 schedule), or icodextrin (Ico schedule). Weekly, total, and dialysis Kt/V and KT were calculated for both urea and creatinine. The mean values of urea Kt/V and KT were significantly lower for the G1 schedule than for the G3 and Ico schedules. The adequacy indices for overnight application of 3.86% glucose and icodextrin were similar. Using dialysis fluids with 1.36% and 2.27% glucose overnight reduces glucose exposure, but those schedules may provide inadequate UF and small-solute removal in some patients (UF < 1 L daily, Kt/V < 1.7).

Fluid status in peritoneal dialysis patients: the European Body Composition Monitoring (EuroBCM) study cohort

BACKGROUND

Euvolemia is an important adequacy parameter in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. However, accurate tools to evaluate volume status in clinical practice and data on volume status in PD patients as compared to healthy population, and the associated factors, have not been available so far.

METHODS

We used a bio-impedance spectroscopy device, the Body Composition Monitor (BCM) to assess volume status in a cross-sectional cohort of prevalent PD patients in different European countries. The results were compared to an age and gender matched healthy population.

RESULTS

Only 40% out of 639 patients from 28 centres in 6 countries were normovolemic. Severe fluid overload was present in 25.2%. There was a wide scatter in the relation between blood pressure and volume status. In a multivariate analysis in the subgroup of patients from countries with unrestricted availability of all PD modalities and fluid types, older age, male gender, lower serum albumin, lower BMI, diabetes, higher systolic blood pressure, and use of at least one exchange per day with the highest hypertonic glucose were associated with higher relative tissue hydration. Neither urinary output nor ultrafiltration, PD fluid type or PD modality were retained in the model (total R² of the model = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The EuroBCM study demonstrates some interesting issues regarding volume status in PD. As in HD patients, hypervolemia is a frequent condition in PD patients and blood pressure can be a misleading clinical tool to evaluate volume status. To monitor fluid balance, not only fluid output but also dietary input should be considered. Close monitoring of volume status, a correct dialysis prescription adapted to the needs of the patient and dietary measures seem to be warranted to avoid hypervolemia.

Relationship between drain volume/fill volume ratio and clinical outcomes associated with overfill complaints in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

To better understand the spectrum of overfill reports and their corresponding clinical severity and etiology, we conducted a review of overfill reports from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which is within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site (www.fda.gov).

METHOD

We searched the MAUDE database for events related to overfill reports between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2008 and recorded drain volume (DV)/fill volume (FV), or DV/FV, and clinical symptoms and signs associated with the overfill report.

RESULTS

Among 462 MAUDE reports with a possible overfill event, 440 reports (95.2%) with a confirmed overfill event contained sufficient information to ascertain the clinical severity of the event. The number of reports with a clinical severity rating of minor, moderate, major, or death was 331, 71, 28, and 10, respectively. The median (range) DV/FV for a subgroup of 292 reports with a clinical severity rating of minor, moderate, major, or death was 1.63 (1.06 - 4.29), 1.71 (1.08 - 5.87), 2.14(1.64 - 2.61), and 2.50 (2.28 - 3.33), respectively. Insufficient drain accounted for a majority of overfill reports.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of reports from the MAUDE database suggests an association between DV/FV and clinical severity of the reported overfill event, as well as significant patient-to-patient variability with respect to intraperitoneal volume tolerance.

Low-GDP fluid (Gambrosol trio) attenuates decline of residual renal function in PD patients: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Residual renal function (RRF) impacts outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Some PD fluids contain glucose degradation products (GDPs) which have been shown to affect cell systems and tissues. They may also act as precursors of advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs) both locally and systemically, potentially inflicting damage to the kidney as the major organ for AGE elimination. We conducted a clinical study in PD patients to see if the content of GDP in the PD fluid has any influence on the decline of the residual renal function.

METHODS

In a multicentre approach, 80 patients (GFF > or = 3 mL/min/1.732 or creatinine clearance > or =3 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) were randomized to treatment with a PD fluid containing low levels of GDP or standard PD fluid for 18 months. RRF was assessed every 4-6 weeks. Fluid balance, mesothelial cell mass marker CA125, peritoneal membrane characteristics, C-reactive protein (CRP), total protein, albumin, electrolytes and phosphate were measured repeatedly.

RESULTS

Data from 69 patients revealed a significant difference in monthly RRF change: -1.5% (95% CI = -3.07% to +0.03%) with low GDP (43 patients) vs -4.3% (95% CI = -6.8% to -2.06%) with standard fluids (26 patients) (P = 0.0437), independent of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker medication. Twenty-four-hour urine volume declined more slowly with low-GDP fluid compared to standard fluids (12 vs 38 mL/month, P = 0.0241), and monthly change of phosphate level was smaller (+0.013 vs +0.061 mg/dL, P = 0.0381).

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospective study demonstrates for the first time a significant benefit concerning preservation of RRF and urine volume of using a PD fluid with low GDP levels. These findings suggest that GDPs might affect patient outcome related to RRF.

The effects of low-sodium peritoneal dialysis fluids on blood pressure, thirst and volume status

Background. Poor ultrafiltration is associated with worse outcomes in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This might in part reflect problems associated with salt and water excess. Increasing the diffusive component of peritoneal sodium removal using low-sodium PD fluids might have beneficial effects on blood pressure (BP), thirst and fluid status that could translate into clinical benefits.

Methods. Using a multicentre, prospective, baseline controlled (1 month), non-randomized intervention (2 months) design, two novel solutions designed from predictions using the three-pore model were investigated. In group A ([Na⁺] = 115 mmol/l), the glucose (G) was increased to 2.0% to compensate for reduced osmolality whereas in group B ([Na⁺] = 102 mmol/l), it was unchanged (2.5%). Both solutions were substituted for one 3- to 5-h exchange per day and no change was made to the rest of the dialysis regime.

Results. Ten patients in group A and 15 in group B completed the study. Both solutions resulted in significant increases (30–50 mmol/dwell) in diffusive sodium removal during the test exchanges, P < 0.001. Ultrafiltration was maintained in group A but reduced in group B. Ambulatory nocturnal mean BP fell in group A [93.1 ± 10.6 mmHg (±SD) versus 85.1 ± 10.2 mmHg, P < 0.05], but was stable in group B (95.4 ± 9.4 versus 95.1.1 ± 10.7 mmHg, NS). Thirst reduced independent of appetite and mood in both groups by 2 months, more markedly in group A. Indices of fluid status, including TBW by bioimpedance and D dilution also improved in group A, P < 0.05, whereas weight increased in group B.

Conclusions. Increasing the diffusive component of sodium removal whilst maintaining ultrafiltration is associated with improvements in BP, thirst and fluid status. The lack of effect seen with uncompensated low-sodium dialysate suggests that these benefits cannot be achieved by manipulation of dialysate sodium removal alone. These observations provide valuable information of the design of future randomized studies to establish the clinical role for low-sodium dialysis fluids.