Effects of Conversion to a Bicarbonate/Lactate-Buffered, Neutral-PH, LOW-GDP PD Regimen in Prevalent PD: A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. Issue 3 (May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Farhat, Karima; Douma, Caroline E.; Ferrantelli, E.; ter Wee, Pieter M.; Beelen, Robert H.J.; van Ittersum, Frans J.
• Is Part Of: Peritoneal dialysis international. Volume 37:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 273
• Page End: 282
• Publication Date: 2017-05
• Subjects: Peritoneal dialysis -- biocompatibility -- cytokines -- peritoneal equilibrium test; Peritoneal dialysis -- Periodicals; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis -- Periodicals; 617.461059
• DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2015.00031
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0896-8608

Abstract

Background: The use of pH-neutral peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids low in glucose degradation products (GDP) may better preserve the peritoneal membrane and have fewer systemic effects. The effects of conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids in prevalent patients are unclear. Few studies on the role of neutral-pH, low-GDP PD have studied residual renal function, ultrafiltration, peritonitis incidence and technique failure, transport characteristics, and local and systemic markers of inflammation in prevalent PD patients. Methods: In a multi-center open-label randomized clinical trial (RCT), we randomly assigned 40 of 78 stable continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) patients to treatment with bicarbonate/lactate, neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluid (Physioneal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) and compared them with 38 patients continuing their current standard lactate-buffered PD fluid (PDF) (Dianeal; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) during 2 years. Primary outcome was residual renal function (RRF) and ultrafiltration (UF) during peritoneal equilibration test (PET); peritonitis incidence was a secondary outcome. Furthermore, clinical parameters as well as several biomarkers in effluents and serum were measured. Results: During follow-up, RRF did not differ between the groups. In the Physioneal group ultrafiltration (UF) during PET remained more or less stable (-20 mL [confidence interval (CI): -163.5 – 123.5 mL]; p = 0.7 over 24 months), whereas it declined in the Dianeal group (-243 mL [CI: -376.6 to -109.4 mL]; p < 0.0001 over 24 months), resulting in a difference of 233.7 mL [95% CI 41.0 – 425.5 mL]; p = 0.017 between the groups at 24 months. The peritonitis rate was lower in the Physioneal group: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.38 (0.15 – 0.97) p = 0.043. No differences were observed between the 2 groups in peritoneal adequacy or transport characteristics nor effluent markers of local inflammation (cancer antigen [CA]125, hyaluronan [HA], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage chemo-attractant protein [MCP]-1, HA and transforming growth factor [TGF]β–1). Conclusion: In prevalent PD patients, our study did not find a difference in RRF after conversion from conventional to neutral-pH, low-GDP PD fluids, although there is a possibility that the study was underpowered to detect a difference. Decline in UF during standardized PET was lower after 2 years in the Physioneal group.