4.6 Article

Identification of the Factors Associated With Intraperitoneal Pressure in ADPKD Patients Treated With Peritoneal Dialysis

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL REPORTS
卷 5, 期 7, 页码 1007-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2020.04.012

关键词

ADPKD; intraperitoneal pressure; peritoneal dialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is reported to be underused in the autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) population because doctors fear technical failure caused by reduced abdominal space and high intraperitoneal pressure (IPP). Methods: We designed a multicenter retrospective study to be carried out in 15 French centers recruiting 60 patients with ADPKD treated with PD to identify factors associated with IPP. Inclusion criteria were start of PD between 2010 and 2017, available tomodensitometry, and IPP measurement in the first year of dialysis. The clinical and radiological data for each patient were reviewed by the same operator. Total kidney volume (TKV), liver volume, and the volume of the abdominal cavity were measured using contouring. Results: TKV and the volume of the abdominal cavity in women and men were, respectively, 2397 ml versus 3758 ml and 9402 ml versus 12,920 ml. In the univariate analysis, IPP was significantly and positively associated with body surface area (P = 0.0024), body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.0001), the volume of the abdominal cavity (P = 0.0005), and the volume of the dialysate infused in the peritoneal cavity (IPV) (P= 0.0108). In the multivariate analysis, only BMI was still significantly associated with IPP (P= 0.0004) Conclusions: Our results identified BMI as the main factor linked to IPP in patients with ADPKD. Despite a reliable assessment of the volume of their organs we did not find any correlation between liver and kidney volumes and IPP. To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to identify factors associated with IPP in patients with ADPKD on PD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据