Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fischbach, M.
Right arrow Articles by Watson, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fischbach, M.
Right arrow Articles by Watson, A. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2002) 17: 380-385
© 2002 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Special Feature

Guidelines by an ad hoc European committee on adequacy of the paediatric peritoneal dialysis prescription

Michel Fischbach1, Constantinos J. Stefanidis2 and Alan R. Watson3 for the European Paediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Working Group,{dagger},

1 Centre Hospitalier Regional et Universitaire, Hopital de Hautepierre, Strasbourg, France, 2 A&K Kyriakou Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece and 3 Children and Young People's Kidney Unit, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK

Keywords: adequacy; dialysis prescription; paediatric; peritoneal dialysis

Introduction

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) has been used in children since 1978 and was rapidly adopted as a home dialysis method. In more recent years, the availability of reliable and portable machines has increased the usage of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), which now exceeds the use of CAPD in most western countries [1].

The prescription of APD is based on an assessment of the needs of the patient with monitoring of biochemistry at regular intervals. The age of the child, the residual renal function, the nutritional intake, the acceptability of the regime to the child and family are all part of the assessment. Historically, children were prescribed CAPD on an initial regime of four bag changes a day with fill volumes of 30–50 ml/kg body weight per bag.

Dialysis adequacy is a concept introduced in the late 1980s, first in haemodialysis and subsequently in peritoneal dialysis (PD), linking . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Peritoneal membrane characteristics

Area and fill volume
Vascular pore surface area
Fill volume

Low peritoneal fill volume: a risk factor?
High peritoneal fill volume: a risk factor?
Optimal peritoneal fill volume
Peritoneal permeability

How to perform a PET{ddagger}
Urea and creatinine adequacy parameters

Discrepancy between urea and creatinine adequacy parameters
Practical guidelines for prescription

CAPD prescription
Initial prescription
Adapted prescription
Notes
APD prescription
Initial prescription
Adapted prescription
Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Notes

References


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
C. P. Schmitt, D. Borzych, B. Nau, E. Wuhl, A. Zurowska, and F. Schaefer
DIALYTIC PHOSPHATE REMOVAL: A MODIFIABLE MEASURE OF DIALYSIS EFFICACY IN AUTOMATED PERITONEAL DIALYSIS
Perit. Dial. Int., July 1, 2009; 29(4): 465 - 471.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 pdiHome page
M. Fischbach, C. Dheu, L. Seuge-Dargnies, and J. F. Delobbe
ADEQUACY OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS IN CHILDREN: CONSIDER THE MEMBRANE FOR OPTIMAL PRESCRIPTION
Perit. Dial. Int., June 1, 2007; 27(Supplement_2): S167 - S170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
C. H. Schroder
Optimal peritoneal dialysis: choice of volume and solution
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 782 - 784.
[Full Text] [PDF]