Optimizing automated peritoneal dialysis: Increasing nightly dialysate flow vs adding a manual daytime exchange - Commentary

Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 248-249

  Davies, Simon J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; CONTINUOUS AMBULATORY PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; CREATININE CLEARANCE; DIALYSATE; GLUCOSE ABSORPTION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; NOTE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SODIUM URINE LEVEL; SURVIVAL RATE; ULTRAFILTRATION;

EID: 34247606640     PISSN: 17458323     EISSN: 17458331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncpneph0448     Document Type: Note

References (5)

1. Jager KJ et al. (2004) The effect of contraindications and patient preference on dialysis modality selection in ESRD patients in The Netherlands. Am J Kidney Dis 43: 891-899
2. Bro S et al. (1999) A prospective, randomized multicenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int 19: 526-533
3. Lo WK et al. (2006) Guideline on targets for solute and fluid removal in adult patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 26: 520-522
4. Davies SJ et al. (2005) Longitudinal membrane function in functionally anuric patients treated with APD: data from EAPOS on the effects of glucose and icodextrin prescription. Kidney Int 67: 1609-1615
5. Brown EA et al. (2003) Survival of functionally anuric patients on automated peritoneal dialysis: the European APD Outcome Study. J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 2948-2957