HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.00020109v1 4/6/1044    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Davison, S. N. Articles by Pannu, N. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davison, S. N. Articles by Pannu, N.

Comparison of Volume Overload with Cycler-Assisted versus Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Sara N. Davison^*,, Gian S. Jhangri, Kailash Jindal^*, and Neesh Pannu^*

^* Division of Nephrology and Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, and Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Correspondence: Dr. Sara N. Davison, 11-107 Clinical Sciences Building, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2G3. Phone: 780-407-8716; Fax: 780-407-7878; E-mail: sara.davison{at}ualberta.ca

Background and objectives: Cycler-assisted peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) has been associated with decreased sodium removal compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) as a result of peritoneal sodium sieving during the short dwells that are associated with CCPD. This may have adverse consequences for management of extracellular fluid volume (ECFV). This study compared ECFV in patients who received CAPD or CCPD; CCPD dwell times were maximized by limiting the number of exchanges, and the use of icodextrin for the long daytime dwells was widespread.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements: This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 158 prevalent patients (90 CAPD, 68 CCPD). Demographic data, blood work, and 24-h dialysate and urine samples were collected from all participants between January 2004 and July 2006. They subsequently underwent assessment of ECFV by multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the relationship between peritoneal dialysis modality and ECFV. Potential cofounders including age, comorbidity, time on dialysis, residual renal function, and icodextrin use were identified a priori.

Results: There were no differences in BP, use of antihypertensive medications, or the presence of peripheral edema between CAPD and CCPD patients. Similarly, there was no difference in the ratio of ECFV to total body water between CAPD (51.8%) and CCPD (51.9%) patients (P = 0.929).

Conclusions: There is no difference in BP, sodium removal, or volume control in patients who use a contemporary approach to CCPD that uses fewer night cycles and liberalizes the use of icodextrin when compared with CAPD.