INTRODUCTION: Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) increases in sitting and upright positions and is related to some individual characteristics. Adverse effects can appear with IPP > 20 cm H2O. Few studies about peritoneal transport or abdominal wall problems have directly measured IPP. We measured IPP in our prevalent PD patients to identify the clinical factors related to its variability and its possible association with peritoneal transport and abdominal wall complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of our stable PD patients. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured using the Durand's method in supine, sitting, and upright position. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included, 70% males, mean age 61.1 ± 15 years, body mass index (BMI) 27.9 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean of supine IPP was 18.0 ± 4.4 cm H2O. Intraperitoneal pressure in sitting and upright positions were similar and higher than in supine. Supine IPP showed a positive correlation with BMI (p < 0.0005) and comorbidity (p < 0.05). A multivariate linear regression analysis showed that BMI and comorbidity (p < 0.005) had a positive correlation with IPP; time on PD and daily total ultrafiltration (UF) (p < 0.005) showed a negative correlation. Patients with an IPP ≥ 20 cm H2O had more hernias (35% vs 17%) and leakages (21% vs 8%) without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Our supine IPPs were higher than others published in adults. Intraperitoneal pressure has an individual value associated with body size. Greater IPP was correlated with lower daily total UF and more hernias and leakages. The measurement of IPP is a simple technique and can help with PD prescription, especially in obese patients.
INTRODUCTION: Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) increases in sitting and upright positions and is related to some individual characteristics. Adverse effects can appear with IPP > 20 cm H2O. Few studies about peritoneal transport or abdominal wall problems have directly measured IPP. We measured IPP in our prevalent PDpatients to identify the clinical factors related to its variability and its possible association with peritoneal transport and abdominal wall complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of our stable PDpatients. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured using the Durand's method in supine, sitting, and upright position. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included, 70% males, mean age 61.1 ± 15 years, body mass index (BMI) 27.9 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean of supine IPP was 18.0 ± 4.4 cm H2O. Intraperitoneal pressure in sitting and upright positions were similar and higher than in supine. Supine IPP showed a positive correlation with BMI (p < 0.0005) and comorbidity (p < 0.05). A multivariate linear regression analysis showed that BMI and comorbidity (p < 0.005) had a positive correlation with IPP; time on PD and daily total ultrafiltration (UF) (p < 0.005) showed a negative correlation. Patients with an IPP ≥ 20 cm H2O had more hernias (35% vs 17%) and leakages (21% vs 8%) without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Our supine IPPs were higher than others published in adults. Intraperitoneal pressure has an individual value associated with body size. Greater IPP was correlated with lower daily total UF and more hernias and leakages. The measurement of IPP is a simple technique and can help with PD prescription, especially in obesepatients.