Although much clinical attention is paid to volume status, 24% of patients still have clinically relevant volume overload. Implementation of a reliable and clinically applicable tool to assess volume status is therefore necessary. It is possible to obtain comparable volume status in PD and HD patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Glucose is an accepted osmotic agent for peritoneal dialysis (PD) although it has several drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks have been addressed by the introduction of solutions with low glucose degradation products and physiological pH in dual-chambered bags. Despite this achievement, there is a need for alternative osmotic agents. This randomized clinical trial analyzes 3-month's clinical experience with a mixture of 0.6% amino acids and 1.4% glycerol. Methods The study was performed at the renal units of the University Hospitals Ghent, Belgium, and Utrecht, The Netherlands. Stable PD patients were randomized for either protocol A (test solution, n = 5) or protocol B (control regimen, n = 5). In both protocols, there was a run-in phase of 1 month with a dialysis regimen of 2 × 2 L 2.27% glucose solution (Dianeal; Baxter, Nivelles, Belgium), 1 × 2 L Extraneal (Baxter), and 1 × 2 L glucose solution (Dianeal). After this month-long run-in period, patients in group A received during 3 months 2 × 2 L amino acid/glycerol solution, 1 × 2 L Extraneal, and at least 1 × 2 L of a classic glucose solution. Results Glucose absorption decreased in the test group during the test phase (from 84.2 ± 8.7 to 11.7 ± 11.6 g/24 hours, p = 0.001). Dialysate levels of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) increased in the test group, from 17.5 ± 11.0 to 32.4 ± 4.6 units/L ( p = 0.04), whereas, in the control group, the levels remained stable (15.5 ± 8.7 and 14.9 ± 9.8 units/L respectively, p = 0.4). There were no differences in serum urea, serum bicarbonate, serum osmolarity, serum albumin, or parameters related to skin-fold thickness or serum glycerol levels between control and test solutions. No differences were observed in obtained ultrafiltration after a 4-hour dwell with 2.27% glucose or the test solution, both measured at week 4 of the run-in period and week 12 of the test period. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the use of a new 0.6% amino acid/1.4% glycerol-containing dialysis solution is safe and well tolerated. Glucose load was reduced significantly and dialysate CA125 levels improved significantly. Ultrafiltration was comparable with that of a 2.27% glucose solution. All these factors, in combination with the potential nutritional benefits, can contribute to a beneficial impact on the success of the PD technique. Further long-term studies in larger patient groups are warranted to explore the potential of this promising new solution.

Access to the peritoneal cavity is an essential factor for successful peritoneal dialysis. The technique of catheter insertion can influence technique success and patient satisfaction. As compared to conventional surgical laparotomy, a bedside blind insertion technique under local anaesthesia has logistical advantages for the patient, the hospital and the community. This study compares outcomes of both methods in a single centre. A retrograde analysis of a prospectively collected database on all catheters implanted at the University hospital Ghent between 1/1/1998 and 31/5/2002 was carried out. During this period, catheters were implanted either by conventional laparotomy (CL) or by a bedside blind insertion technique (BI) under local anaesthesia.