Few studies have discussed the role of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in managing acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. The present study compares the outcome of AKI in intensive care unit (ICU) patients randomized to treatment with tidal PD (TPD) or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). One hundred and twenty-five ICU patients with AKI were randomly allotted to CVVHDF, (Group A, N = 62) or TPD, (group B, N = 63). Cause and severity of renal injury were assessed at the time of initiating dialysis. The primary outcome was hospital mortality at 28 days, and secondary outcomes were time to recovery of renal function, duration of stay in the ICU, metabolic and fluid control, and improvement of sensorial and hemodynamic parameters. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in regard to patients' characteristics. The survival at 28 days was significantly better in the patients treated with TPD when compared to CVVHDF (69.8% vs. 46.8%, P < 0.01). Infectious complications were significantly less (P < 0.01) in the TPD group (9.5%) when compared to the CVVHDF group (17.7%). Recovery of kidney function (60.3% vs. 35.5%), median time to resolution of AKI and the median duration of ICU stay of 9 days (7-11) vs. 19 days (13-20) were all in favor of TPD (P < 0.01). This study suggests that there are better outcomes with TPD compared to CRRT in the treatment of critically ill patients with AKI.
The relation between prophylactic antibiotic use prior to colonoscopy in APD patients and the risk of peritonitis was lacking. Only diabetes mellitus appears to be of significance. Polypectomy did not increase peritonitis episodes.
♦ OBJECTIVE: Metformin continues to be the safest and most widely used antidiabetic drug. In spite of its well-known benefits; metformin use in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is still restricted. Little has been reported about the effect of peritoneal dialysis (PD) on metformin clearance and the phantom of lactic acidosis deprives ESRD patients from metformin therapeutic advantages. Peritoneal dialysis is probably a safeguard against lactic acidosis, and it is likely that using this drug would be feasible in this group of patients. ♦ MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 83 PD patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. All patients were on automated PD (APD). Metformin was administered in a dose of 500 - 1,000 mg daily. Patients were monitored for glycemic control. Plasma lactic acid and plasma metformin levels were monitored on a scheduled basis. Peritoneal fluid metformin levels were measured. In addition, the relation between plasma metformin and plasma lactate was studied. ♦ RESULTS: Mean fasting blood sugar (FBS) was 10.9 ± 0.5 and 7.8 ± 0.7, and mean hemoglobin A1-C (HgA1C) was 8.2 ± 0.8 and 6.4 ± 1.1 at the beginning and end of the study, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.1 ± 4.1 and 27.3 ± 4.5 at the beginning and at the end of the study, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall mean plasma lactate level across all blood samples was 1.44 ± 0.6. Plasma levels between 2 and 3 mmol/L were found in 11.8% and levels of 3 - 3.6 mmol/L in 2.4% plasma samples. Hyperlactemia (level > 2 and ≤ 5 mmol/L) was not associated with overt acidemia. None of our patients had lactic acidosis (levels > 5 mmol/L). Age ≥ 60 was a predictor for hyperlactemia. No relationship was found between plasma metformin and lactate levels. ♦ CONCLUSION: Metformin may be used with caution in a particular group of ESRD patients who are on APD. Metformin allows better diabetic control with significant reduction of BMI. Information on the relationship between metformin and plasma lactate levels is lacking. Peritoneal dialysis appears to be a safeguard against the development of lactic acidosis in this group of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.