Peritoneal fluid transport in CAPD patients with different transport rates of small solutes

Abstract

Background: Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients with high peritoneal solute transport rate often have inadequate peritoneal fluid transport. It is not known whether this inadequate fluid transport is due solely to a too rapid fall of osmotic pressure, or if the decreased effectiveness of fluid transport is also a contributing factor.

Objective: To analyze fluid transport parameters and the effectiveness of dialysis fluid osmotic pressure in the induction of fluid flow in CAPD patients with different small solute transport rates.

Patients: 44 CAPD patients were placed in low (n = 6), low-average (n = 13), high-average (n = 19), and high (n = 6) transport groups according to a modified peritoneal equilibration test (PET).

Methods: The study involved a 6-hour peritoneal dialysis dwell with 2 L 3.86% glucose dialysis fluid for each patient. Radioisotopically labeled serum albumin was added as a volume marker.The fluid transport parameters (osmotic conductance and fluid absorption rate) were estimated using three mathematical models of fluid transport: (1) Pyle model (model P), which describes ultrafiltration rate as an exponential function of time; (2) model OS, which is based on the linear relationship of ultrafiltration rate and overall osmolality gradient between dialysis fluid and blood; and (3) model G, which is based on the linear relationship between ultrafiltration rate and glucose concentration gradient between dialysis fluid and blood. Diffusive mass transport coefficients (K(BD)) for glucose, urea, creatinine, potassium, and sodium were estimated using the modified Babb-Randerson-Farrell model.

Results: The high transport group had significantly lower dialysate volume and glucose and osmolality gradients between dialysate and blood, but significantly higher K(BD) for small solutes compared with the other transport groups. Osmotic conductance, fluid absorption rate, and initial ultrafiltration rate did not differ among the transport groups for model OS and model P. Model G yielded unrealistic values of fluid transport parameters that differed from those estimated by models OS and P. The K(BD) values for small solutes were significantly different among the groups, and did not correlate with fluid transport parameters for model OS.

Conclusion: The difference in fluid transport between the different transport groups was due only to the differences in the rate of disappearance of the overall osmotic pressure of the dialysate, which was a combined result of the transport rate of glucose and other small solutes. Although the glucose gradient is the major factor influencing ultrafiltration rate, other solutes, such as urea, are also of importance. The counteractive effect of plasma small solutes on transcapillary ultrafiltration was found to be especially notable in low transport patients. Thus, glucose gradient alone should not be considered the only force that shapes the ultrafiltration profile during peritoneal dialysis. We did not find any correlations between diffusive mass transport coefficients for small solutes and fluid transport parameters such as osmotic conductance or fluid and volume marker absorption. We may thus conclude that the pathway(s) for fluid transport appears to be partly independent from the pathway(s) for small solute transport, which supports the hypothesis of different pore types for fluid and solute transport.