An individual RBV limit exists for nearly all patients. In most IME-prone patients, these RBV values were stable with only narrow variability, thus making it a useful indicator to mark the individual window of haemodynamic instabilities.

Background Glucose is an accepted osmotic agent for peritoneal dialysis (PD) although it has several drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks have been addressed by the introduction of solutions with low glucose degradation products and physiological pH in dual-chambered bags. Despite this achievement, there is a need for alternative osmotic agents. This randomized clinical trial analyzes 3-month's clinical experience with a mixture of 0.6% amino acids and 1.4% glycerol. Methods The study was performed at the renal units of the University Hospitals Ghent, Belgium, and Utrecht, The Netherlands. Stable PD patients were randomized for either protocol A (test solution, n = 5) or protocol B (control regimen, n = 5). In both protocols, there was a run-in phase of 1 month with a dialysis regimen of 2 × 2 L 2.27% glucose solution (Dianeal; Baxter, Nivelles, Belgium), 1 × 2 L Extraneal (Baxter), and 1 × 2 L glucose solution (Dianeal). After this month-long run-in period, patients in group A received during 3 months 2 × 2 L amino acid/glycerol solution, 1 × 2 L Extraneal, and at least 1 × 2 L of a classic glucose solution. Results Glucose absorption decreased in the test group during the test phase (from 84.2 ± 8.7 to 11.7 ± 11.6 g/24 hours, p = 0.001). Dialysate levels of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) increased in the test group, from 17.5 ± 11.0 to 32.4 ± 4.6 units/L ( p = 0.04), whereas, in the control group, the levels remained stable (15.5 ± 8.7 and 14.9 ± 9.8 units/L respectively, p = 0.4). There were no differences in serum urea, serum bicarbonate, serum osmolarity, serum albumin, or parameters related to skin-fold thickness or serum glycerol levels between control and test solutions. No differences were observed in obtained ultrafiltration after a 4-hour dwell with 2.27% glucose or the test solution, both measured at week 4 of the run-in period and week 12 of the test period. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the use of a new 0.6% amino acid/1.4% glycerol-containing dialysis solution is safe and well tolerated. Glucose load was reduced significantly and dialysate CA125 levels improved significantly. Ultrafiltration was comparable with that of a 2.27% glucose solution. All these factors, in combination with the potential nutritional benefits, can contribute to a beneficial impact on the success of the PD technique. Further long-term studies in larger patient groups are warranted to explore the potential of this promising new solution.

Background Intradialytic morbid events (IMEs, mostly hypotension) are frequent complications during hemodialysis (HD). This study investigated whether automatic feedback control via adjustment of the ultrafiltration rate reduces IME frequency. Methods In this multi-center cross-over study, 56 hypotension-prone patients were treated both with standard HD (sHD, applying a constant ultrafiltration rate) and HD applying a blood volume controlled ultrafiltration rate (cHD). The relative blood volume (RBV) was continuously monitored. The individual relative blood volume limit (RBVcrit) was determined from the measured RBV during initial sHD. During cHD, the ultrafiltration rate was automatically adjusted to keep the actual RBV above RBVcrit. Results In 3,081 HD treatments, slightly fewer IMEs were observed during cHD than during sHD (0.785±0.613 versus 0.695±0.547 per treatment, P=0.144). Less symptomatic events were seen during cHD: -13% for symptomatic hypotension (0.594 versus 0.685 per treatment, P=0.120), and -32% for cramps (0.049 versus 0.072 per treatment, P=0.009). Thirty-one patients with the highest IME rate (IME in at least every second treatment) especially benefited from cHD: 1.185±0.554 versus 0.979±0.543 IME per treatment (P=0.004). The reduction in blood pressure (BP) and the increase in heart rate were lower during the treatments with cHD than with sHD: systolic BP: -18.8±26.7 versus -22.2±28.9 mmHg (P=0.007), diastolic BP: -7.8±14.8 versus -9.1±15.3 mmHg (P=0.064), heart rate: 1.8±10.4 versus 2.3±11.6 per minute (P=0.014). Neither treatment duration nor ultrafiltration volume was significantly different between cHD and sHD. Conclusion For cHD, less intradialytic morbid events were observed than for sHD, and pre- to post-dialytic changes in blood pressure and heart rate were less pronounced.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract