Introduction. Little is known about physical symptoms in peritoneal dialysis (PD) Patients. This study aims to determine the prevalence of symptoms (general and abdominal) in PD patients. Methods. A cross-sectional study, with subsequent followup, using an author-designed 21 symptoms questionnaire (15 nonabdominal and 6 abdominal). Each symptom was assessed on a scale 0–3 for severity (none–severe) and frequency (never–every day). Results. We studied 41 patients, mean age 60 ± 15 years, 56% male, 19.5% diabetics, and 51.5% on APD. Mean number of symptoms was 9.5 ± 3.9 and total symptoms score was 28.5 ± 12 with abdominal scores of 6.4 ± 4.8. Most frequent symptoms were lack of energy, itching, cramps, poor sleep, and loss of appetite. A second evaluation in 20 patients disclosed no statistical difference between the first and second assessments, or between subgroups. Cramps were the only symptoms which decreased over time (P = 0.120). Lack of energy did not correlate with haemoglobin, neither did itching with phosphate level. Conclusions. Physical symptoms are frequent and troublesome; they relate to advanced kidney disease and not specifically to PD. Symptoms remain stable over time and do not appear to relate to dialysis parameter markers.

Faster peritoneal transport status has been associated with adverse outcomes for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Peritoneal protein clearance, through large pores, may be a surrogate marker of local inflammation. We wished to determine whether peritoneal protein transport increased with PD duration or was associated with extracellular water (ECW) expansion. We studied the relationships between 4 h Dialysate (D)/Serum (S) protein and ECW excess, using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance assessments, in 103 PD patients with up to 4 years of prospectively collected peritoneal equilibrium test (PET) results. 4 h PET D/S total protein and creatinine ratios were stable over time (K-W test, P = 0.063 and P = 0.3357, respectively). The initial PET 4 h D/S creatinine and D/S total protein correlated with ECW excess (r = 0.33, P = 0.003, and r = 0.27, P = 0.019, respectively), but thereafter there was no association. CRP and albumin did not correlate with 4 h D/S creatinine or total protein. Serial 4 h D/S total protein and 4 h D/S creatinine correlated all time points (P < 0.001). At the start of PD therapy, over-hydration (ECW excess) was observed with higher 4 h D/S creatinine and 4 h D/S total protein ratios, suggesting initial exposure to PD fluids causes faster transport. Thereafter changes in peritoneal creatinine and total protein transport mirrored each other suggesting that similar factors lead to changes in both small and large pore transport, and there was no sustained increase in larger pore transport with therapy time.

Aims Hemodialysis (HD) patients are at increased risk of respiratory infections, due to increased use of communal travel, waiting areas, close proximity to others when dialysing, and contact with healthcare personnel. We wished to determine the major factors associated with transmission of COVID‐19 within dialysis centres. Methods We compared the differences in the number of COVID‐19 infections in patients and staff in 5 dialysis centres during the 1st COVID‐19 pandemic between March and June 2020, and analyzed differences between centres. Isolation policies and infection control practices were identical between centres. Results 224 (30.3%) patients tested positive for COVID‐19, by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, ranging from 4.8% (centre 1 size 55 patients) to 41.5% (centre 5–248 patients) p = 0.007. Communal transport had a significant effect; with 160 of 452 (35.4%) patients using communal testing positive compared to 22.2% of those not using communal transport (X214.5, p < 0.001). Staff sickness varied; 35 of 36 (97.3% centre 5) dialysis staff contracting COVID‐19, compared to 60% from centre 4 (189 patients 30 staff) ( p < 0.001). Whereas centre 5 had no natural ventilation, and fan assisted ventilation did not meet standards for air changes and air circulation, centre 4 met ventilation standards. Conclusions Although there are many potential risk factors accounting for the increased risk of COVID‐19 infection in hemodialysis patients, we found that differences in communal transport for patients and ventilation between centres was a major contributor accounting for the differences in patients testing positive for COVID‐19 and staff sickness rates. This has important practical applications for designing kidney dialysis centres.