Skip Navigation

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2006 21(Supplement 2):ii47-ii50; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl190
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davies, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davies, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Exploring new evidence of the clinical benefits of icodextrin solutions

Simon J. Davies

Institute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University and Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Simon J. Davies, Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Princes Road, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 7LN, UK. Email: SimonDavies1{at}compuserve.com

Background. Use of icodextrin has the potential of several clinical benefits, including reduced systemic and peritoneal glucose exposure and improvement in fluid status as a result of better ultrafiltration. This article explores the recent evidence for such benefits.

Methods. Systematic literature review to include all randomized controlled trials and longitudinal observational cohort studies of peritoneal dialysis patients treated with icodextrin. Secondary, comparative analysis of the relationship between increased ultrafiltration and preservation of residual urine volume.

Results. Several studies provide support for clinically relevant improvements in biocompatibility. In particular, improved glucose control in diabetics and hyperinsulinaemia and gastric emptying in non-diabetics indicate systemic benefits. Evidence for improved lipid profiles of blood pressure control is less compelling. The increases in net ultrafiltration, especially in high transport patients, in whom glucose solutions are associated with fluid reabsorption in the long dwell, are associated with sustained reductions in the extra-cellular fluid volume. For a given increase in ultrafiltration, residual urine volume is relatively well-preserved with icodextrin, but severe volume depletion puts residual renal function at risk. Considerable variability in achieved ultrafiltration is observed.

Conclusion. The potential clinical benefits of icodextrin are increasingly supported by observational and randomized studies. Further research is required in order to understand the between-patient variability in the efficacy of ultrafiltration achieved with icodextrin, which might in part be explained by differences in metabolism.

Keywords: body composition; biocompatibility; diabetes mellitus; fluid status; membrane function; ultrafiltration


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
pdiHome page
D. Venturoli, T. K. Jeloka, F. F. Ersoy, B. Rippe, and D. G. Oreopoulos
THE VARIABILITY IN ULTRAFILTRATION ACHIEVED WITH ICODEXTRIN, POSSIBLY EXPLAINED
Perit. Dial. Int., July 1, 2009; 29(4): 415 - 421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
A Power, N Duncan, and C Goodlad
Advances and innovations in dialysis in the 21st century
Postgrad. Med. J., February 1, 2009; 85(1000): 102 - 107.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
B. Canaud
Residual renal function: the delicate balance betweenbenefits and risks
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1801 - 1805.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.