The Rediscovery of Continuous Flow Peritoneal Dialysis
R. Amerling
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/039139880402700302
2004-03-01
Abstract:peritoneal dialysis (PD) had peaked, and was on the decline (1). Formerly large PD practices were shrinking, in spite of reductions in peritonitis rates. Larger anephric male patients were having difficulty reaching adequacy targets, even with diurnal and nocturnal exchanges. The degree of personal commitment required to do this sort of dialysis is hard to find, and patients voted with their feet, marching around the corner to the hemodialysis unit. Also around this time, early reports of fabulous clinical success with nocturnal hemodialysis began to arrive. These reports were so striking that the Annual Conference on Peritoneal Dialysis expanded its scope and changed its name to accommodate the daily home hemodialysis enthusiasts (2). What was lacking in PD? In a word, clearance. For PD to seriously compete with daily home HD, it was going to require a course of anabolic steroids to beef up its small solute clearance. Thinking about how to do this led to the rediscovery of continuous flow peritoneal dialysis (CFPD). Since peritoneal membrane surface area and blood flow are more than adequate (3), there had to be a problem with the technique itself that was limiting clearance. This was readily identified as the incredible shrinking concentration gradient seen in equilibration PD, which slows transperitoneal solute transport considerably, even after as little as ten minutes of dwell time. Increasing the frequency of exchanges would partially address this, but would be prohibitive financially, as well as compound the problem of protein loss. Also, time lost to inflow and outflow is subtracted from total effective treatment time. We had to find a way to maintain the transperitoneal solute gradient as high as possible throughout the treatment. Initial thoughts included adding microencapsulated urease to peritoneal fluid, to rapidly break down urea trapped by diffusion. But that would create large quantities of ammonia, which would have to be dealt with, not to mention the technical difficulties of creating microencapsulated urease. Perhaps we could do this externally, and, rather than reinvent sorbent dialysis, use the Redy cartridge. The jump to external regeneration of dialysate led immediately to the CFPD concept. Once outside the peritoneal cavity, any system would do for dialysate regeneration, including the ubiquitous hemodialysis circuit and hemofilter. With a modern HD setup and a dual lumen catheter, clearing solute from a 2-3 liter peritoneal cavity ought to be child’s play. To prove this we set up an experiment using a 3 liter bag of spent dialysate and rapidly lowered the urea nitrogen and creatinine with a dual lumen Quinton catheter and Fresenius 2008H (4). Clearance varied with peritoneal dialysate flow, as was expected. The rate-limiting step, therefore, would certainly be solute movement across the peritoneal membrane. Off to the Karl Nolph Textbook of Peritoneal Dialysis to see what was known of the maximal transport capacity of the membrane. We discovered that, not only had all this been done before, but that an entire world of CFPD had risen up, flourished, and been extinguished, before we had even gotten our feet wet in Nephrology (5). The rediscovery of CFPD was really the rediscovery of James A. Shinaberger, who, in 1965 performed CFPD on five patients, and compared the results to intermittent PD, which was then standard treatment (6). Using two catheters, he recirculated 3 liters of peritoneal dialysate through a twin coil dialyzer in a huge vat of dialysate, at 120-300 ml/min. Urea clearances varied from 46 to as high as 125 ml/min. His description of this experience set the standard by which all future essays were to be judged. Lange (7) in 1968, then Stephen (8), Raja (9), and Gordon (10), all in 1976, followed him. In 1978 Warden (11), then Kablitz (12) published CFPD trials. Most of these pioneers used homemade dual lumen catheters, and achieved urea clearances in the 30-40 ml/min range. After 1978, with the exception of Kraus’ report (13) in 1983, CFPD essentially vanishes from the scene until the ’90s. What happened? CFPD was in all likelihood sidetracked by the inherent technical issues coupled with the appearance on the scene of CAPD (14). The technical simplicity of CAPD, the apparent good clinical results and heavy industry support relegated CFPD to the ash heap of technology also-rans, along with the ASER keyboard, the Sony Betamax and the Apple Newton. Editorial The International Journal of Artificial Organs / Vol. 27 / no. 3, 2004/ pp. 165-167