Cochrane · systematic review · CD007554
Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis
Htay, H, Johnson, DW, Wiggins, KJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 7.1%Low 9 · 64.3%Moderate 2 · 14.3%High 2 · 14.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyLow GDP (all buffer types) compared to standard glucose dialysate for peritoneal dialysis (PD)
Population: PD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Residual renal function (GFR; Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 15 studies · 835 participants | High |
Urine volume ( Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 791 participants | High |
Peritoneal ultrafiltration: 4 hours ( Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 414 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Peritoneal solute transport rate (4‐hour dialysis:plasma creatinine) ( Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 746 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Peritonitis rate (episodes/total patient‐months) (up to 24 months) Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 1.18 [0.84, 1.64] | 10 studies · 18184 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Technique failure (death‐censored) ( Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 1.1 [0.75, 1.63] | 15 studies · 1275 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Death (all causes) ( Low GDP (all buffer types) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 0.73 [0.47, 1.14] | 1229 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Glucose polymer (icodextrin) compared to standard glucose dialysate for peritoneal dialysis (PD)
Population: PD patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Uncontrolled fluid overload ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 0.3 [0.15, 0.59] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Rash ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 2.51 [0.59, 10.72] | 3 studies · 755 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Residual renal function (renal CrCl) ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 114 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Urine volume ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Daily ultrafiltration ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 102 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Peritonitis ( Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 0.95 [0.77, 1.18] | 6 studies · 667 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Technique failure (death‐censored) (up to 24 months) Glucose polymer (icodextrin) vs standard glucose dialysate | RR 0.6 [0.32, 1.12] | 4 studies · 350 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparison
Population: patients with end‐stage kidney disease receiving peritoneal dialysis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
RRF (renal CrCl, GFR; | SMD 0.16 | 11 studies · 564 participants | Moderate |
Urine volume (mL/d) ( | MD 126.39 [26.73, 226.05] | 7 studies · 520 participants | High |
Peritoneal ultrafiltration ‐ 4 hours (mL/4 hours) ( | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 196 participants | Moderate |
24‐hour peritoneal UF (mL/d; mL/d/m²) ( | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 451 participants | Very low |
Inflow pain ( | RR 0.51 [0.24, 1.08] | 1 study · 58 participants | Moderate |
Peritonitis rate (episodes/total patient‐months) (up to 24 months) | RR 1.13 [0.77, 1.66] | 6 studies · 13802 participants | Low |
Technique failure (death‐censored) (up to more than 3 years) | RR 1.04 [0.6, 1.78] | 12 studies · 968 participants | Very low |
Comparison
Population: patients with end‐stage kidney disease receiving peritoneal dialysis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Uncontrolled fluid overload ( | RR 0.3 [0.15, 0.59] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Moderate |
Rash ( | RR 2.51 [0.59, 10.72] | 3 studies · 755 participants | Moderate |
RRF (GFR; renal CrCl) ( | SMD 0.12 | 4 studies · 114 participants | Moderate |
Urine volume (mL/d) ( | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 69 participants | Moderate |
Daily ultrafiltration (mL/d) ( | MD 448.54 [289.28, 607.8] | 4 studies · 102 participants | High |
Peritoneal CrCl ( | SMD 0.36 | 3 studies · 237 participants | Moderate |
Technique survival (death censored) (up to 24 months) | RR 0.58 [0.28, 1.2] | 3 studies · 290 participants | Very low |