Objective The goals for maintenance dialysis treatment are to improve patient survival, reduce patient morbidity, and improve patient quality of life. This is the first randomized prospective study comparing automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) treatment with respect to quality of life and clinical outcomes in relation to therapy costs. Design A prospective, randomized multicenter study. Setting Three Danish CAPD units. Patients Thirty-four adequately dialyzed patients with high or high-average peritoneal transport characteristics were included in the study. Twenty-five patients completed the study. Interventions After randomization, 17 patients were allocated to APD treatment and 17 patients to CAPD treatment for a period of 6 months. Medical and biochemical parameters were evaluated at monthly controls in the CAPD units. Quality-of-life parameters were assessed at baseline and after 6 months by the self-administered short-form SF-36 generic health survey questionnaire supplemented with disease- and treatment-specific questions. Therapy costs were compared by evaluating dialysis-related expenses. Main Outcome Measures Quality-of-life parameters, dialysis-related complications, dialysis-related expenses. Results The quality-of-life studies showed that significantly more time for work, family, and social activities was available to patients on APD compared to those on CAPD ( p < 0.001). Although the difference was not significant, there was a tendency for less physical and emotional discomfort caused by dialysis fluid in the APD group. Sleep problems, on the other hand, tended to be more marked in the APD group. Any positive effect of APD compared to CAPD on dialysis-related hospital days or complication rates could not be confirmed. With larger patient samples, it is possible, however, that a significant difference might have been achieved. The running costs for APD treatment were US $75 per day and for CAPD treatment US $61 per day. Conclusion If APD treatment can help to keep selected patients vocationally or socially active, paying the extra cost seems reasonable.

The protease inhibitor cystatin C is a non-glycosylated low molecular weight protein (Mr=13359) which is produced by all nucleated cells at a constant rate, freely filtered by the renal glomeruli, and catabolized in the tubuli. The aim of the study was to elucidate the applicability of serum cystatin C as a marker of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with various kidney diseases with a wide range of renal function and in dialysis patients. Seventy-six patients with various kidney diseases (aged 20 to 79 years) and 61 dialysis patients (aged 21 to 82 years) were included. Serum cystatin C was measured by automated particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetry, serum and urine creatinine by an enzymatic method, and GFR by 99mTc-DTPA-clearance using a single plasma sample method. Serum cystatin C in patients with various kidney diseases was 1.90+/-0.98 mg/L (mean+/-SD) and in dialysis patients 7.14+/-1.91 mg/L. In the non-dialysis patients a linear relationship was found between 99mTc-DTPA-clearance and 1/serum cystatin C (r=0.91, p-value<0.0001), 1/serum creatinine (r=0.89, p-value<0.0001), and creatinine-clearance (r=0.88, p-value<0.0001). Comparison of the non-parametric ROC plots for serum cystatin C (area under the curve (AUC)=0.9665; SE=0.0169), serum creatinine (AUC=0.9554; SE=0.0205), and creatinine-clearance (AUC=0.9731; SE=0.0160) revealed no significant differences (p-values: 0.50, 0.78, and 0.49). In conclusion, cystatin C may be a likewise good marker of the GFR as serum creatinine and creatinine-clearance, cystatin C having the advantage being independent of gender and muscle mass.

Alfacalcidol and paricalcitol are vitamin D analogs used for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease, but have known dose-dependent side effects that cause hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. In this investigator-initiated multicenter randomized clinical trial, we originally intended two crossover study periods with a washout interval in 86 chronic hemodialysis patients. These patients received increasing intravenous doses of either alfacalcidol or paricalcitol for 16 weeks, until parathyroid hormone was adequately suppressed or calcium or phosphate levels reached an upper threshold. Unfortunately, due to a period effect, only the initial 16-week intervention period for 80 patients was statistically analyzed. The proportion of patients achieving a 30% decrease in parathyroid hormone levels over the last four weeks of study was statistically indistinguishable between the two groups. Paricalcitol was more efficient at correcting low than high baseline parathyroid hormone levels, whereas alfacalcidol was equally effective at all levels. There were no differences in the incidence of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. Thus, alfacalcidol and paricalcitol were equally effective in the suppression of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients while calcium and phosphorus were kept in the desired range.

Renal plasma flow (RPF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), arginine vasopressin in plasma (AVP), free water clearance (CH2O) and blood pressure (BP) were determined in 11 patients with essential hypertension at the end of 3 consecutive periods of observation each of 6 of weeks duration; indapamide 2.5 mg daily was given in period 2 and placebo in periods 1 and 3. RPF and GFR were reduced by 9% and BP by 9%/14% supine and 14%/12% standing during indapamide treatment. Changes in renal haemodynamics were not correlated with those in BP. AVP was not significantly altered by indapamide and was not correlated with BP. Indapamide reduced CH2O possibly due to the reduction in GFR. It is concluded that indapamide evidently induces redistribution of the cardiac output, with enhanced muscle blood flow and reduced renal perfusion, and that AVP does not seem to be involved in blood pressure regulation in mild to moderate essential hypertension under basal conditions.