There is no consensus in the literature on the best renal replacement therapy (RRT) in acute kidney injury (AKI), with both hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) being used as AKI therapy. However, there are concerns about the inadequacy of PD as well as about the intermittency of HD complicated by hemodynamic instability. Recently, continuous replacement renal therapy (CRRT) have become the most commonly used dialysis method for AKI around the world. A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the effect of high volume peritoneal dialysis (HVPD) with daily hemodialysis (DHD) on AKI patient survival. A total of 120 patients with acute tubular necrosis (ATN) were assigned to HVPD or DHD in a tertiary-care university hospital. The primary end points were hospital survival rate and renal function recovery, with metabolic control as the secondary end point. Sixty patients were treated with HVPD and 60 with DHD. The HVPD and DHD groups were similar for age (64.2+/-19.8 and 62.5+/-21.2 years), gender (male: 72 and 66%), sepsis (42 and 47%), hemodynamic instability (61 and 63%), severity of AKI (Acute Tubular Necrosis-Index Specific Score (ATN-ISS): 0.68+/-0.2 and 0.66+/-0.2), Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation Score (APACHE II) (26.9+/-8.9 and 24.1+/-8.2), pre-dialysis BUN (116.4+/-33.6 and 112.6+/-36.8 mg per 100 ml), and creatinine (5.8+/-1.9 and 5.9+/-1.4 mg per 100 ml). Weekly delivered Kt/V was 3.6+/-0.6 in HVPD and 4.7+/-0.6 in DHD (P<0.01). Metabolic control, mortality rate (58 and 53%), and renal function recovery (28 and 26%) were similar in both groups, whereas HVPD was associated with a significantly shorter time to the recovery of renal function. In conclusion, HVPD and DHD can be considered as alternative forms of RRT in AKI.

No abstract

Summary Background and objectives Peritoneal dialysis is still used for AKI in developing countries despite concerns about its limitations. The objective of this study was to explore the role of high-volume peritoneal dialysis in AKI patients in relation to metabolic and fluid control, outcome, and risk factors associated with death. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A prospective study was performed on 204 AKI patients who were assigned to high-volume peritoneal dialysis (prescribed Kt/V=0.60/session) by flexible catheter and cycler; 150 patients (80.2%) were included in the final analysis. Results Mean age was 63.8±15.8 years, 70% of patients were in the intensive care unit, and sepsis was the main etiology of AKI (54.7%). BUN and creatinine levels stabilized after four sessions at around 50 and 4 mg/dl, respectively. Fluid removal and nitrogen balance increased progressively and stabilized around 1200 ml and −1 g/d after four sessions, respectively. Weekly delivered Kt/V was 3.5±0.68. Regarding AKI outcome, 23% of patients presented renal function recovery, 6.6% of patients remained on dialysis after 30 days, and 57.3% of patients died. Age and sepsis were identified as risk factors for death. In urine output, increase of 1 g in nitrogen balance and increase of 500 ml in ultrafiltration after three sessions were identified as protective factors. Conclusions High-volume peritoneal dialysis is effective for a selected AKI patient group, allowing adequate metabolic and fluid control. Age, sepsis, and urine output as well as nitrogen balance and ultrafiltration after three high-volume peritoneal dialysis sessions were associated significantly with death.

Background Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still widely used for acute renal failure (ARF) in developing countries despite concerns about its inadequacy. Continuous PD has been evaluated in ARF by analyzing the resolution of metabolic abnormality and normalization of plasma pH, bicarbonate, and potassium. Methodology A prospective study was performed on 30 ARF patients who were assigned to high-dose continuous PD (Kt/V = 0.65 per session) via a flexible catheter (Tenckhoff) and automated PD with a cycler. Fluid removal, pH and metabolic control, protein loss, and patient outcome were evaluated. Results Patients received 236 continuous PD sessions; 76% were admitted to ICUs. APACHE II score was 32.2 ± 8.65. BUN concentrations stabilized after 3 sessions, creatinine after 4, and bicarbonate and pH after 2. Fluid removal was 2.1 ± 0.62 L/day. Creatinine and urea clearances were 15.8 ± 4.16 and 17.3 ± 5.01 mL/minute respectively. Normalized creatinine clearance and urea Kt/V values were 110.6 ± 22.5 L/week/1.73 m2 body surface area and 3.8 ± 0.6 respectively. Solute reduction index was 41% ± 6.5% per session. Serum albumin values remained stable in spite of considerable protein losses (median 21.7 g/day, interquartile range 9.1 – 29.8 g/day). Regarding ARF outcome, 23% of patients presented renal function recovery, 13% remained on dialysis after 30 days of follow-up, and 57% died. Conclusion High-dose continuous PD by flexible catheter and cycler was an effective treatment for ARF. It provided high solute removal, allowing appropriate metabolic and pH control, and adequate dialysis dose and fluid removal. Continuous PD can therefore be considered an alternative to other forms of renal replacement therapy in ARF.

The definition of adequate dialysis in acute renal failure (ARF) is complex and involves the time of referral to dialysis, dose, and dialytic method. Nephrologist experience with a specific procedure and the availability of different dialysis modalities play an important role in these choices. There is no consensus in literature on the best method or ideal dialysis dose in ARF. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is used less and less in ARF patients, and is being replaced by continuous venovenous therapies. However, it should not be discarded as a worthless therapeutic option for ARF patients. PD offers several advantages over hemodialysis, such as its technical simplicity, excellent cardiovascular tolerance, absence of an extracorporeal circuit, lack of bleeding risk, and low risk of hydro-electrolyte imbalance. PD also has some limitations, though: it needs an intact peritoneal cavity, carries risks of peritoneal infection and protein losses, and has an overall lower effectiveness. Because daily solute clearance is lower with PD than with daily HD, there have been concerns that PD cannot control uremia in ARF patients. Controversies exist concerning its use in patients with severe hypercatabolism; in these cases, daily hemodialysis or continuous venovenous therapy have been preferred. There is little literature on PD in ARF patients, and what exists does not address fundamental parameters such as adequate quantification of dialysis and patient catabolism. Given these limitations, there is a pressing need to re-evaluate the adequacy of PD in ARF using accepted standards. Therefore, new studies should be undertaken to resolve these problems.

In AKI, patients evaluated by nephrologists seem to be more seriously ill than those not evaluated and present similar mortality rate. The delayed nephrology consultation can be associated with increased ICU mortality.

Despite faster metabolic control and higher dialysis dose and ultrafiltration with EHD, this study provides no evidence of a survival benefit of EHD compared with HVPD. The limitations of this study were that the results were not presented according to the intention to treat and it did not control other supportive management strategies as nutrition support and timing of dialysis initiation that might influence outcomes in AKI.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major global health problem in both developed and developing nations, negatively affecting patient morbidity and responsible for an estimated 1.4 million deaths per year. Although the International Society of Nephrology set a goal of eliminating preventable deaths from AKI by 2025, implementation of this program in developing countries presents major challenges not only because of the lack of resources but also because of the scarce data addressing the epidemiology and causes of AKI in developing countries, the limited health care resources to diagnose and treat AKI, and the poor awareness of the impact of AKI on patient outcomes.