Anne-Louise Sawaya, Ivan Damgov, Soraya Menouer, Joëlle Terzic, Claus Peter Schmitt, Ariane Zaloszyc
{"title":"Intraperitoneal pressure measurements in children: a retrospective study.","authors":"Anne-Louise Sawaya, Ivan Damgov, Soraya Menouer, Joëlle Terzic, Claus Peter Schmitt, Ariane Zaloszyc","doi":"10.1684/ndt.2025.106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimes should be individualized based on clinical tolerance and adequacy. Routine hydrostatic intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) measurements have been suggested to define optimal intraperitoneal dialysate volume (IPV), data on applicability and variability in clinical routine are few.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed 655 IPP measurements monthly performed in 21 children on stable automated PD. IPP was measured with the day-time dwell volume (IPV 606 ± 303 mL/m2) after two-hour dwell time (IPP1; n = 430), and again with the night-time dwell volume (IPV 958 ± 274 mL/m2) after 10 min dwell time (IPP2; n = 225), using bicarbonate (BPDF) and lactate buffered (LPDF) low GDP fluids and icodextrin fluid (IPDF), respectively. Findings were related to PD related complications and Kt/V.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean of all IPP measurements was 11.0 ± 2.6 cmH2O or 2.1 ± 0.8 cmH2O/100 mL/m2, with a mean IPV of 7.3 ± 3.4 mL/100 mL/m². Mean IPP1 was 10.3 ± 2.2 cmH2O, corresponding to 6.1 ± 3.1 mL/100 mL/m² IPV, IPP2 was 12.5 ± 2.5 cmH2O, corresponding to 9.6 ± 2.6 mL/100 mL/m² IPV (IPP1 vs IPP2 p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The values of IPP were acceptable in this pediatric population. IPP is relatively higher with higher fill volumes per BSA. Using single fill volume IPP measurements provides IPP with high intra- and interindividual variability. The relation to patient outcome is uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":94153,"journal":{"name":"Nephrologie & therapeutique","volume":"21 1","pages":"13-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephrologie & therapeutique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/ndt.2025.106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimes should be individualized based on clinical tolerance and adequacy. Routine hydrostatic intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) measurements have been suggested to define optimal intraperitoneal dialysate volume (IPV), data on applicability and variability in clinical routine are few.
Methods: We retrospectively analysed 655 IPP measurements monthly performed in 21 children on stable automated PD. IPP was measured with the day-time dwell volume (IPV 606 ± 303 mL/m2) after two-hour dwell time (IPP1; n = 430), and again with the night-time dwell volume (IPV 958 ± 274 mL/m2) after 10 min dwell time (IPP2; n = 225), using bicarbonate (BPDF) and lactate buffered (LPDF) low GDP fluids and icodextrin fluid (IPDF), respectively. Findings were related to PD related complications and Kt/V.
Results: Mean of all IPP measurements was 11.0 ± 2.6 cmH2O or 2.1 ± 0.8 cmH2O/100 mL/m2, with a mean IPV of 7.3 ± 3.4 mL/100 mL/m². Mean IPP1 was 10.3 ± 2.2 cmH2O, corresponding to 6.1 ± 3.1 mL/100 mL/m² IPV, IPP2 was 12.5 ± 2.5 cmH2O, corresponding to 9.6 ± 2.6 mL/100 mL/m² IPV (IPP1 vs IPP2 p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: The values of IPP were acceptable in this pediatric population. IPP is relatively higher with higher fill volumes per BSA. Using single fill volume IPP measurements provides IPP with high intra- and interindividual variability. The relation to patient outcome is uncertain.