Pre-emptive CAPD—what are the arguments?

Max Dratwa

Clinique de Néphrologie-Dialyse, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Max Dratwa, Clinique de Néphrologie-Dialyse, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 4 Place Van Gehuchten, B-1020 Brussels, Belgium.

`It's no good running fast, what counts is not starting late-' ... and with a belly full of dialysate.

Introduction

Despite improvements in dialytic therapy and hormonal replacement, patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) still display high morbidity and mortality. A variety of factors have been implicated. The burden of co-morbid conditions (cardiovascular disease, hypertension, anaemia, malnutrition, etc.) with which patients reach ESRD has great importance and requires interventions certainly several years before renal replacement therapy (RRT) is started. Factors more readily amenable to intervention by nephrologists include dialysis dose, pre-ESRD care, and timely initiation of dialysis. Improvement of dialysis adequacy by increasing the dose delivered by both haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been a consistent trend of the past decade. Early referral to optimize pre-ESRD care remains a serious problem in Europe [1] but could certainly be improved by a concerted educational effort by nephrologists addressing non-nephrologists and the public.

When to start dialysis?

The right moment to start dialysis remains a matter of controversy even though the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (DOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation recommended starting dialysis earlier than today's common practice in order to improve the clinical outcomes for ESRD [2]. This new approach, designated the `Healthy Start' concept, postulates that the uraemic state is a progressive process that impacts on patients health long before classical uraemic symptoms are observed. The `Healthy Start' concept implies that more subtle and early manifestations of renal dysfunction, most notably malnutrition, are amenable to dialytic therapy. Indeed, it has been clearly demonstrated that nutritional status deteriorates as a result of decreased protein ingestion and increased catabolism as renal failure progresses [3,4]. In addition, the CANUSA study showed an association between the relative risk of death and nutritional parameters. Importantly, nutritional parameters improved after several months of PD [4,5]. Thus, it makes perfect sense to start RRT at a time when renal failure is advanced, but when uraemic patients do not yet show signs of malnutrition. When is that? The DOQI guidelines propose that one should start RRT when a renal Kt/V of 2.0 has been reached (equivalent to a creatinine clearance of 9–14 ml/min/1.73 m2) unless there are absolutely no signs of malnutrition or symptoms of uraemia. This value of 2.0 has been chosen because it has been linked to a reasonably good survival on CAPD. The continuous character of this dialytic modality renders it comparable to continuous renal function. After all, this approach is not too dissimilar from the rationale of starting erythropoietin therapy prior to ESRD. Despite its compelling attraction, however, the `Healthy Start' concept has not been received with great general enthusiasm, except by some opinion leaders. The reason is presumably that the rationale is based only on retrospective studies and indirect evidence. A multicentre European randomized prospective study is currently under way to test the validity of this approach by examining its impact on mortality, morbidity, residual renal function, quality of life, and social costs.

Which modality of dialysis to select?

If the nephrological community accepts the idea of an earlier, i.e. healthier, start of RRT, the question arises as to which dialytic modality to choose. The answer might also involve a departure from common practice habits. PD is selected as the first modality of RRT in only 10–25% of patients starting dialysis in Western Europe (excluding UK). Nevertheless its results regarding patient survival are as good, if not better, as those of HD, in the first 3 years of therapy [6]. This is probably linked to the known favourable effect of PD on residual renal function. This longer preservation of residual renal function allows the patient a more liberal fluid/diet intake with the added psychological advantage of maintaining normal micturition. In addition, although this has recently been questioned, it may delay the development of dialysis amyloidosis by retarding the progressive increase in ß2 microglobulin plasma levels in PD patients compared to their HD counterparts. Furthermore, even though renal function is greatly diminished, it still makes a notable contribution to total clearance at this stage. It allows the maintenance of adequacy targets with lower numbers and/or volumes of exchanges, thus preserving quality of life by reducing the burden of manipulations. This approach has been designated `incremental dialysis'. Automated peritoneal dialysis has indeniable advantages with respect to quality of life. It has been recently suspected, however, that it reduces residual renal function faster than CAPD, but this point remains moot.

In any case, for both types of PD, every effort should be made not to jeopardize residual renal function: one should avoid nephrotoxic drugs or excessive ultrafiltration; in addition, the prescription of a loop diuretic can be useful. It does not improve clearances, but helps maintain fluid balance without resorting to too many exchanges with high concentrations of glucose. The latter can even be replaced with one long exchange of a 7.5% icodextrin solution (nightly for CAPD or daily for APD), which can produce significant ultrafiltration despite being iso-osmolar to plasma. Maintenance of residual renal function also seems to be an important factor for maintenance of sodium and water balance early in the course of PD, allowing for a normal extracellular volume and good control of blood pressure.

What are the advantages?

There are also other clear advantages of starting dialytic therapy with PD rather than HD. As with any home therapy, the risk of acquiring a blood-borne viral infection such as hepatitis C is evidently considerably less. From a quality of life point of view, PD seems superior to HD at the beginning of therapy; indeed a recent study [7] showed that mental health scores assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire 3 months after beginning dialysis were much closer to those of the general population for PD patients than for those starting on HD.

In addition, the outcome of transplantation is influenced by the type of preceding dialysis method; in a recent review, Van Biesen et al. [8] showed that immediate graft function was less frequently impaired in PD than in HD patients and one had to resort less frequently to dialysis in the post-transplantation period. Length of hospitalization and cost were less and there was a tendency to better long-term results.

For all these reasons, it is not surprising that starting RRT on PD is apparently advantageous with respect to survival as recently shown by Van Biesen et al. [9]. Using the Cox model, they demonstrated that patients starting on PD and transferred to HD for various reasons (infections, mechanical problems, inadequate clearance and/or ultrafiltration) after a mean period of 3.5 years had a significantly better overall survival than patients kept on their initial treatment of either mode. Obviously, starting with PD delays the use of vascular access, which remains the Achilles' heel of HD. From a societal point of view, PD is very cost-effective and is one answer to the financial and logistical constraints of a continuously increasing number of ESRD patients.

Conclusion

Common sense supported by scientific data indicates that patients with advanced chronic renal failure should be referred early to a nephrological team. Patients will then be provided with up-to-date means of controlling uraemic complications and will be educated in time about the different options of RRT. If medically suitable, they should be offered PD as the best first option, with transfer to transplantation whenever possible and to HD whenever needed. Whatever the choice, dialysis should be instituted early enough to avoid malnutrition and other sequelae of prolonged renal failure. This approach meets the three postulates recently put forward: timely referral, healthy start and integrated care of renal failure [10]. The time has come for the three modalities of RRT to be considered complementary and no longer competitive.

References

  1. Lameire N, Van Biesen W, Dombros N et al. The referral pattern of patients with ESRD is a determinant in the choice of dialysis modality. Perit Dial Int 1997; 17 [Suppl. 2]: S161–166[ISI][Medline]
  2. NKF-DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Peritoneal Dialysis Adequacy. National Kidney Foundation, New York, 1997; 17–22
  3. Ikizler TA, Hakim RM. Nutrition in end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 343–357[ISI][Medline]
  4. McCusker FX, Teehan BP, Thorpe KE, Keshaviah PR, Churchill DN. How much peritoneal dialysis is required for the maintenance of a good nutritional state? Kidney Int 1996; 50 [Suppl. 56]: S56–61[ISI]
  5. Churchill DN, Taylor DW, Keshaviah PR. Adequacy of dialysis and nutrition in continuous peritoneal dialysis: Association with clinical outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996; 7: 198–207[Abstract]
  6. Fenton SSA, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M et al. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 30: 334–342[ISI][Medline]
  7. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW et al. Quality of life in patients on chronic dialysis: self-assessment 3 months after the start of treatment. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 29: 584–592[ISI][Medline]
  8. Van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Lameire N. Impact of pretransplantation dialysis modality on patient outcome after renal transplantation: the role of peritoneal dialysis revisited. Perit Dial Int 1999; 19: 103–106[ISI][Medline]
  9. Van Biesen W, Dequidt C, Vijt D, Vanholder R, Lameire N. Analysis of the reasons for transfers between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and their effect on survivals. Adv Perit Dial 1998; 14: 90–94[Medline]
  10. Coles GA, Williams JD. What is the place of peritoneal dialysis in the integrated treatment of renal failure? Kidney Int 1998; 54: 2234–2240[ISI][Medline]




This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Dratwa, M.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Dratwa, M.