TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of conversion to a bicarbonate/lactate-buffered, neutral-pH, low-GDP PD regimen in prevalent PD
T2 - A 2-year randomized clinical trial
AU - Farhat, Karima
AU - Douma, Caroline E.
AU - Ferrantelli, E.
AU - ter Wee, Pieter M.
AU - Beelen, Robert H.J.
AU - van Ittersum, Frans J.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - ♦ Background: The use of pH-neutral peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids low in glucose degradation products (GDP) may better preserve the peritoneal membrane and have fewer systemic effects. The effects of conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids in prevalent patients are unclear. Few studies on the role of neutral-pH, low-GDP PD have studied residual renal function, ultrafiltration, peritonitis incidence and technique failure, transport characteristics, and local and systemic markers of inflammation in prevalent PD patients. ♦ Methods: In a multi-center open-label randomized clinical trial (RCT), we randomly assigned 40 of 78 stable continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) patients to treatment with bicarbonate/lactate, neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluid (Physi-oneal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) and compared them with 38 patients continuing their current standard lactate-buffered PD fluid (PDF) (Dianeal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) during 2 years. Primary outcome was residual renal function (RRF) and ultrafiltration (UF) during peritoneal equilibration test (PET); peritonitis incidence was a secondary outcome. Furthermore, clinical parameters as well as several biomarkers in effluents and serum were measured. ♦ Results: During follow-up, RRF did not differ between the groups. In the Physioneal group ultrafiltration (UF) during PET remained more or less stable (-20 mL [confidence interval (CI): -163.5 – 123.5 mL]; p = 0.7 over 24 months), whereas it declined in the Dianeal group (-243 mL [CI: -376.6 to -109.4 mL]; p < 0.0001 over 24 months), resulting in a difference of 233.7 mL [95% CI 41.0 – 425.5 mL]; p = 0.017 between the groups at 24 months. The peritonitis rate was lower in the Physioneal group: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.38 (0.15 – 0.97) p = 0.043. No differences were observed between the 2 groups in peritoneal adequacy or transport characteristics nor effluent markers of local inflammation (cancer antigen [CA]125, hyaluronan [HA], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage chemo-attractant protein [MCP]-1, HA and transforming growth factor [TGF]β-1). ♦ Conclusion: In prevalent PD patients, our study did not find a difference in RRF after conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids, although there is a possibility that the study was underpowered to detect a difference. Decline in UF during standardized PET was lower after 2 years in the Physioneal group.
AB - ♦ Background: The use of pH-neutral peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids low in glucose degradation products (GDP) may better preserve the peritoneal membrane and have fewer systemic effects. The effects of conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids in prevalent patients are unclear. Few studies on the role of neutral-pH, low-GDP PD have studied residual renal function, ultrafiltration, peritonitis incidence and technique failure, transport characteristics, and local and systemic markers of inflammation in prevalent PD patients. ♦ Methods: In a multi-center open-label randomized clinical trial (RCT), we randomly assigned 40 of 78 stable continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) patients to treatment with bicarbonate/lactate, neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluid (Physi-oneal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) and compared them with 38 patients continuing their current standard lactate-buffered PD fluid (PDF) (Dianeal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) during 2 years. Primary outcome was residual renal function (RRF) and ultrafiltration (UF) during peritoneal equilibration test (PET); peritonitis incidence was a secondary outcome. Furthermore, clinical parameters as well as several biomarkers in effluents and serum were measured. ♦ Results: During follow-up, RRF did not differ between the groups. In the Physioneal group ultrafiltration (UF) during PET remained more or less stable (-20 mL [confidence interval (CI): -163.5 – 123.5 mL]; p = 0.7 over 24 months), whereas it declined in the Dianeal group (-243 mL [CI: -376.6 to -109.4 mL]; p < 0.0001 over 24 months), resulting in a difference of 233.7 mL [95% CI 41.0 – 425.5 mL]; p = 0.017 between the groups at 24 months. The peritonitis rate was lower in the Physioneal group: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.38 (0.15 – 0.97) p = 0.043. No differences were observed between the 2 groups in peritoneal adequacy or transport characteristics nor effluent markers of local inflammation (cancer antigen [CA]125, hyaluronan [HA], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage chemo-attractant protein [MCP]-1, HA and transforming growth factor [TGF]β-1). ♦ Conclusion: In prevalent PD patients, our study did not find a difference in RRF after conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids, although there is a possibility that the study was underpowered to detect a difference. Decline in UF during standardized PET was lower after 2 years in the Physioneal group.
KW - Biocompatibility
KW - Cytokines
KW - Peritoneal dialysis
KW - Peritoneal equilibrium test
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028462887&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3747/pdi.2015.00031
DO - 10.3747/pdi.2015.00031
M3 - Article
C2 - 28348100
AN - SCOPUS:85028462887
VL - 37
SP - 273
EP - 282
JO - Peritoneal Dialysis International
JF - Peritoneal Dialysis International
SN - 0896-8608
IS - 3
ER -