Bimodal Dialysis: An Integrated Approach to Renal Replacement Therapy

Abstract

BackgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) are both widely used as sole therapies for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). There is still controversy over which (if either) is superior in terms of patient outcomes. Peritoneal dialysis offers the advantages of long, slow, continuous ultrafiltration and potentially enhanced protection of residual renal function (RRF). In contrast, HD offers superior solute removal at the cost of undesirable cardiovascular tolerance of high rates of sodium and water removal. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical feasibility of offering a combined treatment of both modalities [bimodal dialysis (BMD)] to incident patients reaching ESRD. We set out to investigate if it might be possible to utilize the intrinsic advantages of both modalities within a setting of good patient acceptability.MethodsWe prospectively studied 8 patients. They were recruited in the pre-ESRD phase from a specialist low clearance clinic. An arteriovenous fistula was formed and peritoneal catheters were inserted. The BMD consisted of 2, 3-hour, high efficiency, euvolemic HD sessions per week in combination with 2 PD exchanges per day to provide a degree of solute clearance and all of the ultrafiltration. Adequacy was measured independently for each modality. Patients were followed using the standard range of evaluations in addition to RRF (by creatinine clearance and EDTA clearance), echocardiography (left ventricular mass and ventricular performance), treatment outcomes, patient symptoms, and complications.ResultsMean time on BMD was 346 ± 74.9 (range 245 – 431) days. Peritonitis rate was 21 months per episode (mean 0.6 ± 0.9, 0 – 2 episodes per patient). Mean peritoneal ultrafiltration volume was 1.58 ± 0.32 (1.3 – 2.1) L per day. Delivered Kt/V and weekly PD Kt/V did not change significantly. Patients’ RRF was maintained over the study period, as were serum albumin and control of serum phosphorus. Blood pressure was controlled with a reduction in the number of antihypertensive agents. Left ventricular mass index reduced over the treatment period, from a mean of 194 ± 31.2 (161 – 265) to 156 ± 21.2 (138 – 189) g/m2( p = 0.05). Ventricular performance remained unchanged over the study [ejection fraction 50.4 ± 11.1 (38 – 67) % to 48 ± 8.0 (48 – 67) %]. Mean time during BMD spent on HD alone was 4.2 ± 6.9 (0 – 16) days, and on PD alone 9.2 ± 10.6 (0 – 25) days.ConclusionThis study suggests that BMD is a feasible treatment for ESRD. It is associated with adequate solute removal and good hemodynamic/volume control, and allows increased treatment flexibility for coping with complications normally requiring recourse to unplanned HD with temporary central venous access.