Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on June 23, 2009
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2009 24(9):2620-2622; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp313
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/9/2620    most recent
gfp313v1
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.
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 [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Preserving residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis: volume or biocompatibility?

Simon J. Davies

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

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Simon Davies; E-mail: simondavies1@compuserve.com

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Leaving life-style issues aside, preservation of residual renal function (RRF) is seen as one of the main clinical benefits of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a treatment modality choice. The majority of studies have indicated that RRF is relatively well preserved in comparison to haemodialysis (HD) [1,2] and two major hypotheses have emerged to explain this difference: (i) relative stability of volume status—perhaps even a tendency to develop hypervolaemia in PD compared to HD, where fluctuations in volume are common, especially when attempts are made to control blood pressure principally by manipulation of volume and (ii) the biocompatibility of the dialysis fluids. In the case of HD, there is evidence that ultrapure dialysate preserves RRF [3], whereas in PD it has been suggested that the newer biocompatible fluids, which contain reduced levels of glucose degradation products (GDPs), lead to reduced circulating levels of these potentially nephrotoxic substances . . . [Full Text of this Article]


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