Growing concern over the limited capacity of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) system has revived interest in continuous flow peritoneal dialysis (CFPD), a modality in which continuous circulation of PD fluid is maintained at a high flow rate using two separate catheters or one dual-lumen catheter. The CFPD regimen contrasts the “inflow/outflow” regimen, which requires specific times devoted to filling and draining the peritoneum via a single-lumen catheter. Historical data established CFPD capabilities in providing higher solute clearance and ultrafiltration rate (UFR) using either an open loop system with a single pass of fresh PD fluid, or various external purifications of the spent dialysate.
♦ Objective
To compare, in patients with various peritoneal transport patterns, fluid and solute removal achieved during a standardized program of CFPD versus two control schedules: nightly intermittent peritoneal dialysis (NIPD) and nightly tidal peritoneal dialysis (NTPD). This study focused on small solute clearances and UFR using only isotonic PD solution (Dianeal PD1 1.36%; Baxter Healthcare, Castlebar, Ireland). The model of fresh dialysate, single pass, was used to optimize solute gradients and to characterize the impact of a continuous flow regimen on peritoneal transport characteristics.
♦ Methods
In a crossover trial, 4-hour CFPD sessions were performed at a fixed dialysate flow rate (100 mL/minute) in 5 patients being treated with automated PD. A hemofiltration monitor (BM25; Baxter Healthcare, Brussels, Belgium) was adapted to the CFPD technique. The peritoneal cavity was filled through a temporary second catheter and simultaneously drained using the permanent peritoneal access. Fluid and solute removal were compared to data obtained from a control period based on 8-hour sessions of NIPD or NTPD using 13 L of isotonic dialysate.
♦ Results
High-flow CFPD enhanced the diffusive transport coefficient compared with the alternative flow regimen in patients ranging from low to high transporters. Weekly creatinine clearance increased from 36.9 L (22.3 – 49.6 L) and 37.3 L (27.5 – 45.0 L) with NIPD and NTPD respectively, to 74.9 L (42.3–107.5 L) with CFPD. Mean UFR was 2.44 mL/min with CFPD versus 0.92 and 0.89 mL/min with NIPD and NTPD respectively. The mass transfer area coefficient (MTAC) of creatinine with CFPD was 2.5-fold that obtained from the peritoneal equilibration test data.
♦ Conclusion
Our results confirm that CFPD is highly effective in increasing fluid and solute removal. Furthermore, consistent with historical data, our findings indicate that the enhanced solute transfer is not due only to steeper solute gradients, but also depends on increased MTAC in a wide range of peritoneum transport characteristics.
Diaz-BuxoJA. Automated peritoneal dialysis: a therapy in evolution. Contrib Nephrol1999; 129:1–14.
2.
Canada–USA (CANUSA) Study. Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group: adequacy of dialysis and nutrition in continuous peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol1996; 7:198–207.
3.
NKF-DOQI Clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis adequacy. National Kidney Foundation. Am J Kidney Dis1997; 30(3 Suppl 2):S80–92.
ShinabergerJH, ShearL, BarryKG. Increasing efficiency of peritoneal dialysis. Experience with peritoneal–extracorporeal recirculation dialysis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs1965; 11:76–82.
AshSR, JanleEM. Continuous-flow-through peritoneal dialysis (CFPD): comparison of efficiency to IPD, TPD, and CAPD in an animal model. Perit Dial Int1997; 17: 365–72.
AmerlingR, DesimoneL, GotchF. Continuous flow PD (CFPD) with the Fresenius 2008H: first clinical trial [Abstract]. ASAIO J2000; 46:218.
14.
MineshimaM, SuzukiS, SatoY, IshimoriI, IshidaK, KanekoI. Solute removal characteristics of continuous recirculation peritoneal dialysis in experimental and clinical studies. ASAIO J2000; 46:95–8.
15.
MineshimaM, WatanukiM, YamagataK, EraK, NakazotoS, SugaH. Development of continuous recirculation peritoneal dialysis using a double lumen catheter. ASAIO J1992; 38:M377–81.
FreidaP, IssadB. Comparative study of recirculating continuous flow APD versus in flow/out flow regimen [Abstract]. Perit Dial Int2001; 21(Suppl 2):S146.
18.
RandersonDH, FarrelPC. Mass transport properties of the human peritoneum. ASAIO J1980; 3:140–6.
19.
UechiM, IidaE, WatanabeT, KawajimaS, NakayamaT, KanoY. Peritoneal dialysis using a recycling system in dogs. J Vet Med Sci1993; 55:723–7.
DurandPY, FreidaP, IssadB, ChanliauJ. How to reach optimal peritoneal creatinine clearances in automated peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int1996; 16(Suppl 1):S167–70.
22.
KeshaviahP, EmersonP, VoneshE, BrandesJC. Relationship between body size, fill volume and mass transfer area coefficient in peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol1994; 4:1820–6.
23.
WaniewskiJ, WerynskiA, HeimbürgerO, LindholmB. Minimal dialysate flow for urea and creatinine removal in continuous flow peritoneal dialysis [Abstract]. Perit Dial Int2000; 20:143.
24.
PaniaguaR, AmatoD, VoneshE, Correa–RotterR, RamosA, MoranJ, for the Mexican Nephrology Collaborative Study Group. Effects of increased peritoneal clearances on mortality rates in peritoneal dialysis: ADEMEX, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol2002; 13:1307–20.
25.
ChurchillDN. The ADEMEX Study: make haste slowly. J Am Soc Nephrol2002; 13:1415–18.
