Why the study?
Does peritoneal dialysis offer advantages in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome?
Does peritoneal dialysis offer advantages in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome?
Peritoneal dialysis is highlighted as a simple, home-based therapy that offers advantages such as hemodynamic stability and preservation of residual renal function for patients with refractory heart failure and cardiorenal syndrome.
Dialysis may be considered for refractory cardiorenal syndrome; leaves open the need for RCTs to define role and timing.
Heart failure is a major and growing health problem. There have been major advances in the understanding of pathophysiology of heart failure as a chronic progressive disorder, which has led to newer therapies. Whatever the etiology, many heart failure patients eventually progress to a refractory stage characterized by worsening renal function and resistance to diuretic therapy with attending severe edema. A logical treatment for this “cardiorenal syndrome” is the use of dialysis, which is efficient in treating both the hypervolaemia and azotaemia of refractory heart failure. Though all modalities of dialysis have been tried, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the simplest choice and offers several advantages. It is an already established long-term home-based therapy and does not require complex machinery or hospital resources. PD is associated with preservation of residual renal function, gentle continuous ultrafiltration, hemodynamic stability, better middle molecule clearance, sodium seiving with maintenance of normonatremia and maybe less inflammation, especially with newer solutions, compared to hemodialysis. In this paper we discuss the potential advantages of PD in the treatment of heart failure, review available literature and lay some foundation for future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krishnan et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: