BACKGROUND: Novel, biocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions have become available in recent years. In 2001, low glucose degradation products (GDP), neutral pH solutions became commercially available in Korea. To date, there are no reports regarding the large scale adoption of these solutions in clinical practice and regarding what, if any, impact these solutions have on patient outcomes. METHODS: Using a database of almost 4000 patients treated by PD in Korea, we conducted a prospective, longitudinal observational study documenting the patterns of use of one novel low GDP solution (balance, Fresenius Medical Care, St Wendel, Germany) in 1909 PD incident patients between 1 January 2002 and midyear 2005. Outcomes including patient and technique survival and peritonitis rates were analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Prescription of low GDP solutions reached between 70 and 80% by the year 2003 and persisted at this level. Patients prescribed low GDP PD solution tended to be younger and were more likely to be treated in centres with larger enrollment in the database. Survival of diabetic patients treated with the new PD solution was identical to that of the non-diabetic patients treated with standard PD fluids (PDF) and treatment with low GDP PDF independently reduced the relative risk (RR) of death (RR = 0.613; CI 0.50-0.74; P < 0.00001) in a proportional hazards model which included age, diabetes and centre experience. In a univariate analysis, low GDP PD solution was associated with a longer technique survival (P = 0.049) but this effect was not significant in multivariate analysis. No significant differences in peritonitis-free interval or peritonitis rate could be attributed to the prescribed PDF. CONCLUSION: Prescription of low GDP, pH-neutral PD solutions has rapidly increased in Korea. This change has resulted in a significant improvement in patient and technique survival without any measurable change in peritonitis incidence or rate. Reasons for the improved patient survival cannot be determined from this analysis and require further study.
BACKGROUND: Novel, biocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions have become available in recent years. In 2001, low glucose degradation products (GDP), neutral pH solutions became commercially available in Korea. To date, there are no reports regarding the large scale adoption of these solutions in clinical practice and regarding what, if any, impact these solutions have on patient outcomes. METHODS: Using a database of almost 4000 patients treated by PD in Korea, we conducted a prospective, longitudinal observational study documenting the patterns of use of one novel low GDP solution (balance, Fresenius Medical Care, St Wendel, Germany) in 1909 PD incident patients between 1 January 2002 and midyear 2005. Outcomes including patient and technique survival and peritonitis rates were analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Prescription of low GDP solutions reached between 70 and 80% by the year 2003 and persisted at this level. Patients prescribed low GDPPD solution tended to be younger and were more likely to be treated in centres with larger enrollment in the database. Survival of diabeticpatients treated with the new PD solution was identical to that of the non-diabeticpatients treated with standard PD fluids (PDF) and treatment with low GDP PDF independently reduced the relative risk (RR) of death (RR = 0.613; CI 0.50-0.74; P < 0.00001) in a proportional hazards model which included age, diabetes and centre experience. In a univariate analysis, low GDPPD solution was associated with a longer technique survival (P = 0.049) but this effect was not significant in multivariate analysis. No significant differences in peritonitis-free interval or peritonitis rate could be attributed to the prescribed PDF. CONCLUSION: Prescription of low GDP, pH-neutral PD solutions has rapidly increased in Korea. This change has resulted in a significant improvement in patient and technique survival without any measurable change in peritonitis incidence or rate. Reasons for the improved patient survival cannot be determined from this analysis and require further study.
Authors: Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo; Soraia Lemos de Siqueira; Carlos Eduardo Poli-de-Figueiredo; Domingos O d'Avila Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: David W Johnson; Fiona G Brown; Margaret Clarke; Neil Boudville; Tony J Elias; Marjorie W Y Foo; Bernard Jones; Hemant Kulkarni; Robyn Langham; Dwarakanathan Ranganathan; John Schollum; Michael Suranyi; Seng H Tan; David Voss Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Monika Lichodziejewska-Niemierko; Michał Chmielewski; Maria Dudziak; Alicja Ryta; Bolesław Rutkowski Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Anna Bryland; Marcus Broman; Martin Erixon; Bengt Klarin; Torbjörn Lindén; Hans Friberg; Anders Wieslander; Per Kjellstrand; Claudio Ronco; Ola Carlsson; Gabriela Godaly Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 17.440