Peritoneal dialysis in diabetics: there is room for more

Challenges of Glycemic Control in People With Diabetes and Advanced Kidney Disease and the Potential of Automated Insulin Delivery

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease in the world. It is known that maintaining optimal glycemic control can slow the progression of CKD. However, the failing kidney impacts glucose and insulin metabolism and contributes to increased glucose variability. Conventional methods of insulin delivery are not well equipped to adapt to this increased glycemic lability. Automated insulin delivery (AID) has been established as an effective treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and there is emerging evidence for their use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, few studies have examined their role in diabetes with concurrent advanced CKD. We discuss the potential benefits and challenges of AID use in patients with diabetes and advanced CKD, including those on dialysis.

On the importance of the interplay of residual renal function with clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most important public health concerns of the century, and is associated with high rates of morbidity, mortality and social costs. CKD evolving towards end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is on the rise resulting in a greater number of patients requiring peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD). The aim of this manuscript is to review the current literature on the interplay of residual renal function (RRF) with clinical outcomes in ESKD. The persistence of RRF is one of the most important predictors of decreased morbidity, mortality, and better quality of life in both PD and HD patients. RRF contributes to the well-being of ESKD patients through various mechanisms including higher clearance of solutes, maintenance of fluid balance, removal of uremic toxins and control of electrolytes. Furthermore, RRF has beneficial effects on inflammation, anemia, malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, obesity, changes in the microbiota, and cardiac diseases. Several strategies have been proposed to preserve RRF, such as blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, better blood pressure control, incremental PD and HD. Several clinical trials investigating the issue of preservation of RRF are ongoing. They are needed to broaden our understanding of the interplay of RRF with clinical outcomes in ESKD.

Clinical outcomes of infection-related hospitalization in incident peritoneal dialysis patients

Background

Infection is the second leading cause of death in patients undergoing long-term dialysis. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with an increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (IRH) when compared with hemodialysis. In this study, we investigated the influence of IRH on clinical outcomes in incident PD patients.

Methods

In total, 583 incident PD patients were selected from the Clinical Research Center Registry for End-Stage Renal Disease, a nationwide multicenter prospective observational cohort study in Korea. Incident PD patients who had been hospitalized for infection-related diseases were defined as the IRH group. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was technical failure. The median follow-up period was 29 months.

Results

Seventy-three PD patients (12.5%) were categorized in the IRH group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes mellitus was a significant independent predictor for IRH (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 5.29; P = 0.007). The most common causes of IRH were peritonitis (63.0%) and respiratory tract infection (9.6%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed that IRH was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.51; 95% CI, 1.12 to 5.62; P = 0.026) and for the technical failure of PD (HR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.90 to 5.51; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our data showed that after initiation of PD, IRH was significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and technical failure.

Peritoneal dialysis patient selection from a comorbidity perspective

Despite many medical and socioeconomic advantages, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized dialysis modality that in most countries is used by only 5%-20% of dialysis patients, while the vast majority are treated with in-center hemodialysis. Several factors may explain this paradox, such as lack of experience and infrastructure for training and monitoring of PD patients, organizational issues, overcapacity of hemodialysis facilities, and lack of economic incentives for dialysis centers to use PD instead of HD. In addition, medical conditions that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as contraindications to PD represent barriers for the use of PD because of their purported potential negative impact on clinical outcomes in patients starting PD. While there are few absolute contraindications to PD, high age, comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, polycystic kidney disease, heart failure, and previous history of abdominal surgery and renal allograft failure, may be seen (rightly or wrongly) as relative contraindications and thus barriers to initiation of PD. In this brief review, we discuss how the presence of these conditions may influence the strategy of selecting patients for PD, focusing on measures that can be taken to overcome potential problems.

Renal Replacement Therapy: Purifying Efficiency of Automated Peritoneal Dialysis in Diabetic versus Non-Diabetic Patients

BACKGROUND

In order to reduce the cardiovascular risk, morbidity and mortality of peritoneal dialysis (PD), a minimal level of small-solute clearances as well as a sodium and water balance are needed. The peritoneal dialysis solutions used in combination have reduced the complications and allow for a long-time function of the peritoneal membrane, and the preservation of residual renal function (RRF) in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) is crucial for the maintenance of life quality and long-term survival. This retrospective cohort study reviews our experience in automatic peritoneal dialysis (APD) patients, with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) secondary to diabetic nephropathy (DN) in comparison to non-diabetic nephropathy (NDN), using different PD solutions in combination.

DESIGN

Fifty-two patients, 29 diabetic and 23 non-diabetic, were included. The follow-up period was 24 months, thus serving as their own control.

RESULTS

The fraction of renal urea clearance (Kt) relative to distribution volume (V) (or total body water) (Kt/V), or creatinine clearance relative to the total Kt/V or creatinine clearance (CrCl) decreases according to loss of RRF. The loss of the slope of RRF is more pronounced in DN than in NDN patients, especially at baseline time interval to 12 months (loss of 0.29 mL/month vs. 0.13 mL/month, respectively), and is attenuated in the range from 12 to 24 months (loss of 0.13 mL/month vs. 0.09 mL/month, respectively). Diabetic patients also experienced a greater decrease in urine output compared to non-diabetic, starting from a higher baseline urine output. The net water balance was adequate in both groups during the follow up period. Regarding the balance sodium, no inter-group differences in sodium excretion over follow up period was observed. In addition, the removal of sodium in the urine output decreases with loss of renal function. The average concentration of glucose increase in the cycler in both groups (DN: baseline 1.44 ± 0.22, 12 months 1.63 ± 0.39, 24 months 1.73 ± 0.47; NDN: baseline 1.59 ± 0.40, 12 months 1.76 ± 0.47, 24 months 1.80 ± 0.46), in order to maintain the net water balance. The daytime dwell contribution, the fraction of day and the renal fraction of studies parameters provide sustained benefit in the follow-up time, above 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The wet day and residual renal function are determinants in the achievement of the objective dose of dialysis, as well as in the water and sodium balance. The cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) does not seem to influence the cleansing effectiveness of the technique.

Diabetic patients could do as well as non-diabetic patients without inflammation on peritoneal dialysis

Background

Diabetic patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) have lower survival and are more likely complicated with inflammation than their non-diabetic counterparts. Here, we explored the interaction effects between diabetes and inflammation on the survival of PD patients.

Methods

Overall, 2,264 incident patients were enrolled from a retrospective cohort study in China. Patients were grouped according to the baseline levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP, ≤3 mg/L or >3 mg/L) or serum albumin (SA, ≥38 g/L or <38 g/L). Then, several multivariable adjusted stratified Cox regression models were constructed for these groups to explore the predicted role of diabetes on all-cause or cardiovascular death under inflammatory or non-inflammatory conditions.

Results

Diabetics on PD were more likely to have inflammation than non-diabetics on PD, and they presented with elevated hsCRP (52.7% vs. 47.3%, P = 0.03) or decreased SA (77.9% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.001) levels. After stratification by size of center and controlling for confounding factors, diabetes was found to predict all-cause death in patients with hsCRP >3 mg/L or SA <38 g/L but not in patients with hsCRP ≤3 mg/L or SA ≥38 g/L. Similarly, the presence of diabetes was an indication of cardiovascular death in patients with hsCRP >3 mg/L or SA <38 g/L. However, if further adjusted by baseline cardiovascular disease, the predicted role of diabetes on death related to cardiovascular disease in patients with SA <38 g/L disappeared.

Conclusion

Diabetic patients could do as well as non-diabetic patients without inflammation on peritoneal dialysis. Active strategies should be implemented to improve inflammation status in diabetic patients on PD.

[Peritoneal dialysis--an ideal initial dialysis mode]

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has become an established dialysis modality besides hemodialysis (HD). Although PD is an equal form of dialysis compared to HD, patients numbers on PD remain low worldwide. There are several reasons for this fact. The medical staff in some centers is not used to PD, so there is not enough information about the different dialysis methods available for the patients and the staff doesn't get the training that would be necessary to get familiar with PD. There are some concerns about offering PD to certain groups of patients despite excellent results as to quality of dialysis, good preservation of residual renal function, low costs compared to HD and better quality of life than on HD. However, PD should be offered to all patients requiring dialysis with very few exeptions as an ideal initial dialysis method. This includes patients with diabetes, patients with kidney transplant failure, patients with congestive heart failure and older patients.