[Why and how to promote peritoneal dialysis?]

The prevalence of peritoneal dialysis in France remains one of the lowest in Europe in spite of official recommendations in 2008. Progress in peritoneal catheter placement and a good knowledge of the management of catheter complications are essential. A more frequent use of biocompatible solutions should achieve a better preservation of the peritoneal membrane. Such physiological peritoneal fluids seem to decrease morbidity and mortality. Best peritoneal dialysis indications are mainly young patients waiting for a kidney transplantation, old patients without malnutrition and patients with cardiac insufficiency. Objective and complete information dedicated to both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis is necessary, even for patients seen in emergency or unplanned or late referral patients. A pre-end-stage renal disease education program has to be mandatory. Non-medical obstacles, mainly financial, are still common so that economic incitations are necessary for the development of peritoneal dialysis. A university formation of nephrologists is now available

Heparin use during dialysis sessions induces an increase in the antiangiogenic factor soluble Flt1

BACKGROUND: Soluble Flt1 (sFlt1) is a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, secreted mainly by the placenta, endothelial cells and monocytes. Increased sFlt1 serum levels correlate with endothelial dysfunction and cardiovascular complications in dialysis patients. However, the impact of dialysis by itself on sFlt1 serum levels remains unknown. METHODS: We assessed sFlt1 kinetics during dialysis and the impact of different dialysis techniques [high-flux haemodialysis (HD), haemodiafiltration (HDF)] and heparinization procedures on sFlt1 serum levels in 48 patients on regular dialysis. RESULTS: sFlt1 serum levels increased as early as 1 min after the start of dialysis and peaked at 15 min before returning to baseline at 4 h [mean peak level 2551 pg/mL, versus 102 before dialysis (P < 0.0001)]. sFlt1 kinetics were similar with two different dialysis membranes. In contrast, when unfractionated heparin (UH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were omitted during dialysis (HD or pre-dilution HDF), no significant increase in sFlt1 levels occurred. Conversely, delayed administration of LMWH (after 30 min of a heparin-free HD) induced a sharp increase in sFlt1. Similarly, when UH and LMWH were omitted and citrate-based dialysate or a heparin-coated membrane was used, sFlt1 levels remained unchanged. When heparinization procedures were the same, no difference in sFlt1 levels was noted between HD and HDF. In vitro, UH and LMWH failed to induce sFlt1 release by monocytes from controls or HD patients. These findings suggest that priming of monocytes on the extracorporeal circuit is required for heparin-induced sFlt1 release or that endothelial cells contribute to this increase. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that heparin-based HD induces a major sFlt1 release, which may exacerbate the anti-angiogenic state and thus endothelial dysfunction, commonly found in dialysis patients

Mortality reduction by post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration : A cause-specific analysis

Background. From an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from four randomized controlled trials comparing haemodialysis (HD) with post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration (ol-HDF), previously it appeared that HDF decreases all-cause mortality by 14% (95% confidence interval 25; 1) and fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) by 23% (39; 3). Significant differences were not found for fatal infections and sudden death. So far, it is unclear, however, whether the reduced mortality risk of HDF is only due to a decrease in CVD events and if so, which CVD in particular is prevented, if compared with HD. Methods. The IPD base was used for the present study. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for cause-specific mortality overall and in thirds of the convection volume were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression models. Annualized mortality and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated as well. Results. Besides 554 patients dying from CVD, fatal infections and sudden death, 215 participants died from 'other causes', such as withdrawal from treatment and malignancies. In this group, the mortality risk was comparable between HD and ol-HDF patients, both overall and in thirds of the convection volume. Subdivision of CVD mortality in fatal cardiac, non-cardiac and unclassified CVD showed that ol-HDF was only associated with a lower risk of cardiac casualties [0.64 (0.61; 0.90)]. Annual mortality rates also suggest that the reduction in CVD death is mainly due to a decrease in cardiac fatalities, including both ischaemic heart disease and congestion. Overall, 32 and 75 patients, respectively, need to be treated by high-volume HDF (HV-HDF) to prevent one all-cause and one CVD death, respectively, per year. Conclusion. The beneficial effect of ol-HDF on all-cause and CVD mortality appears to be mainly due to a reduction in fatal cardiac events, including ischaemic heart disease as well as congestion. In HV-HDF, the NNT to prevent one CVD death is 75 per year

Mortality reduction by post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration : A cause-specific analysis

Background. From an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from four randomized controlled trials comparing haemodialysis (HD) with post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration (ol-HDF), previously it appeared that HDF decreases all-cause mortality by 14% (95% confidence interval 25; 1) and fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) by 23% (39; 3). Significant differences were not found for fatal infections and sudden death. So far, it is unclear, however, whether the reduced mortality risk of HDF is only due to a decrease in CVD events and if so, which CVD in particular is prevented, if compared with HD. Methods. The IPD base was used for the present study. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for cause-specific mortality overall and in thirds of the convection volume were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression models. Annualized mortality and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated as well. Results. Besides 554 patients dying from CVD, fatal infections and sudden death, 215 participants died from 'other causes', such as withdrawal from treatment and malignancies. In this group, the mortality risk was comparable between HD and ol-HDF patients, both overall and in thirds of the convection volume. Subdivision of CVD mortality in fatal cardiac, non-cardiac and unclassified CVD showed that ol-HDF was only associated with a lower risk of cardiac casualties [0.64 (0.61; 0.90)]. Annual mortality rates also suggest that the reduction in CVD death is mainly due to a decrease in cardiac fatalities, including both ischaemic heart disease and congestion. Overall, 32 and 75 patients, respectively, need to be treated by high-volume HDF (HV-HDF) to prevent one all-cause and one CVD death, respectively, per year. Conclusion. The beneficial effect of ol-HDF on all-cause and CVD mortality appears to be mainly due to a reduction in fatal cardiac events, including ischaemic heart disease as well as congestion. In HV-HDF, the NNT to prevent one CVD death is 75 per year