Measuring intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) has been proposed as a means to help maintain optimal ultrafiltration and prevent complications such as hernias, peritoneal leaks, and gastroesophageal reflux, which are linked with high IPP levels. The Durand method is a commonly accepted method for measuring IPP; however, it is cumbersome and not routinely used in clinics due to its complexity. Here we report the outcome of a pilot study that evaluated the agreement between IPP measured using an in-line pressure transducer and IPP measured using the Durand method during in-clinic automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) therapy. This was an exploratory, descriptive, early feasibility study conducted among patients with a diagnosis of kidney failure who were on APD therapy. IPP was continuously measured using an investigational device (x-MIP transducer) and at fixed timepoints using the Durand method. The study included 10 patients with a median age of 47.0 years and a median body mass index of 28.1 kg/m2. The study population was predominantly female, comprising 70% of the participants. The transducer IPP showed a moderate agreement with manual IPP, as most differences in measurements were within ±3 cmH2O. Overall, IPP did not correlate with fill-volume. However, when examined on a per-patient level, six patients showed stronger correlations (ρ > 0.7) between IPP and fill-volume, while the remaining four patients had weaker correlations (ρ < 0.5). No safety concerns were identified in the study. In summary, this study indicates that a transducer-based IPP measurement device could serve as an alternative to the Durand method.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Peter Rutherford
Brad M. Keller
Alyssa Wilmington
Peritoneal Dialysis International
Mount Sinai Medical Center
Baxter (United States)
Hypertension Institute
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Rutherford et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d894ec6c1944d70ce05e71 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08968608261435113