Publication:
Comparison between standard single chamber versus dual chamber low glucose degradation product peritoneal dialysis fluids

dc.contributor.authorKornchanok Vareesangthipen_US
dc.contributor.authorSurachet Vongsanimen_US
dc.contributor.authorStanley Fanen_US
dc.contributor.authorAndrew Davenporten_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity College Londonen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe Royal London Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherChiang Mai Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-25T09:26:40Z
dc.date.available2020-08-25T09:26:40Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 International Center for Artificial Organs and Transplantation and Wiley Periodicals LLC. Dual chamber (DC) peritoneal dialysis (PD) dialysates contain fewer glucose degradation products (GDPs), so potentially reducing advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs), which have been reported to increase inflammation and cardiovascular risk. We wished to determine whether use of DC dialysates resulted in demonstrable patient benefits. Biochemical profiles, body composition, muscle strength, and skin autofluorescence measurements of tissue AGEs (SAF) were compared in patients using DC and standard single chamber dialysates. We studied 263 prevalent PD patients from 2 units, 62.4% male, mean age 61.8 ± 16.1 years, 78 (29.7%) used DC dialysates. DC patients were younger (55.9 ± 16.4 vs. 64.2 ± 15.4 years), and more had lower Davies comorbidity score (median 1 (0-1) vs. 1 (0, 2)), slower peritoneal transport (D/P creatinine 0.67 ± 0.12 vs. 0.73 ± 0.13), greater extracellular water-to-total body water (ECW/TBW) ratio (0.46 ± 0.05 vs. 0.42 ± 0.06), all P <.001, whereas there were no differences in the duration of PD (median (IQR) 19 (8-32) vs. 14 (8-23) months), residual renal function (Kt/Vurea 0.71 ± 0.71 vs. 0.87 ± 0.82), urine volume (642 (175-1200) vs. 648 (300-1200) mL/day), hand grip strength (26.9 ± 10.5 vs. 24.9 ± 10.7 kg), C-reactive protein (4(1-10) vs. 4(2-12) mg/L), and SAF (median 3.60 (3.02, 4.40) vs. 3.50 (3.00, 4.23)) AU. In our cross-sectional observational study, we were not able to show a demonstrable advantage for using low GDP dialysates over conventional glucose dialysates, in terms of biochemical profiles, residual renal function, muscle strength, or tissue AGE deposition. More patients using low GDP dialysates were slower peritoneal transporters with higher ECW/TBW ratios.en_US
dc.identifier.citationArtificial Organs. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/aor.13768en_US
dc.identifier.issn15251594en_US
dc.identifier.issn0160564Xen_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85088790856en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/57800
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85088790856&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectChemical Engineeringen_US
dc.subjectEngineeringen_US
dc.subjectMaterials Scienceen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleComparison between standard single chamber versus dual chamber low glucose degradation product peritoneal dialysis fluidsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85088790856&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections