Effects of biocompatible versus standard fluid on peritoneal dialysis outcomes

180Citations
Citations of this article
88Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The clinical benefits of using "biocompatible" neutral pH solutions containing low levels of glucose degradation products for peritoneal dialysis compared with standard solutions are uncertain. In this multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned 185 incident adult peritoneal dialysis patients with residual renal function to use either biocompatible or conventional solution for 2 years. The primary outcome measure was slope of renal function decline. Secondary outcome measures comprised time to anuria, fluid volume status, peritonitis-free survival, technique survival, patient survival, and adverse events. We did not detect a statistically significant difference in the rate of decline of renal function between the two groups as measured by the slopes of GFR: 20.22 and 20.28 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per month (P=0.17) in the first year in the biocompatible and conventional groups, respectively, and, 20.09 and 20.10 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per month (P=0.9) in the second year. The biocompatible group exhibited significantly longer times to anuria (P=0.009) and to the first peritonitis episode (P=0.01). This group also had fewer patients develop peritonitis (30% versus 49%) and had lower rates of peritonitis (0.30 versus 0.49 episodes per year, P=0.01). In conclusion, this trial does not support a role for biocompatible fluid in slowing the rate of GFR decline, but it does suggest that biocompatible fluid may delay the onset of anuria and reduce the incidence of peritonitis compared with conventional fluid in peritoneal dialysis. Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Johnson, D. W., Brown, F. G., Clarke, M., Boudville, N., Elias, T. J., Foo, M. W. Y., … Voss, D. (2012). Effects of biocompatible versus standard fluid on peritoneal dialysis outcomes. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 23(6), 1097–1107. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2011121201

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free