Introduction: Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) increases in sitting and upright positions and is related to some individual characteristics. Adverse effects can appear with IPP > 20 cm H₂O. Few studies about peritoneal transport or abdominal wall problems have directly measured IPP. We measured IPP in our prevalent PD patients to identify the clinical factors related to its variability and its possible association with peritoneal transport and abdominal wall complications. Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational study of our stable PD patients. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured using the Durand's method in supine, sitting, and upright position. Results: Forty-nine patients were included, 70% males, mean age 61.1 ± 15 years, body mass index (BMI) 27.9 ± 5.2 kg/m². The mean of supine IPP was 18.0 ± 4.4 cm H₂O. Intraperitoneal pressure in sitting and upright positions were similar and higher than in supine. Supine IPP showed a positive correlation with BMI ( p < 0.0005) and comorbidity ( p < 0.05). A multivariate linear regression analysis showed that BMI and comorbidity ( p < 0.005) had a positive correlation with IPP; time on PD and daily total ultrafiltration (UF) (p < 0.005) showed a negative correlation. Patients with an IPP ≥ 20 cm H₂O had more hernias (35% vs 17%) and leakages (21% vs 8%) without statistical significance. Conclusion: Our supine IPPs were higher than others published in adults. Intraperitoneal pressure has an individual value associated with body size. Greater IPP was correlated with lower daily total UF and more hernias and leakages. The measurement of IPP is a simple technique and can help with PD prescription, especially in obese patients.

This cross-sectional study aims to explore the prevalence of protein-energy wasting (PEW) in dialysis patients in Catalonia, Spain, using a new and practical online tool which enables rapid calculation and comparison with other nutritional scores. Methods: A web tool (Nutrendial) was created to introduce different variables and automatically calculate PEW, Malnutrition inflammation Score (MIS) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in 1389 patients (88% in haemodialysis (HD)), 12% in peritoneal dialysis (PD) from different regions of Catalonia. Results: A prevalence of 23.3% (26% HD, 10.2% PD) of PEW was found, with a mean MIS score of 6 and SGA score of C in 7% of the patients. ROC analysis showed MIS as the best nutritional score to diagnose PEW (AUC 0.85). Albumin delivered lower diagnostic precision (AUC 0.77) and sensitivity (66%). A cut off point of 7 (86% sensitivity and 75% specificity) for MIS and 3.7 mg/dL for albumin were found to predict the appearance of PEW in this population. SGA B or C showed an 87% sensitivity and 55% specificity to diagnose PEW. Very low nutritional intervention (14%) was recorded with this tool in patients with PEW. Conclusions: This new online tool facilitated the calculation of PEW, enabling different professionals—including nephrologists, dieticians and nurses—to efficiently obtain insights into the nutritional status of the Catalonian dialysis population and implement the required nutritional interventions. MIS is the score with more sensitivity to diagnose PEW.

Background and Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) on different nutritional outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis for a “routinely collected data bank” in a multicenter cohort, conducted on consecutive malnourished or at-risk of malnutrition patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis who underwent IDPN with a three-in-one parenteral nutrition formula for a period ≥ 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change in the malnutrition inflammation score (MIS) score between baseline and the last follow-up visit on IDPN. Results: Fifty-six patients were included. The mean age was 72.4 ± 12.0 years, and 24 (42.9%) were women. In the overall study sample, MIS significantly decreased from 16.4 (95%CI: 15.3–17.65) at baseline to 14.3 (95%CI: 12.8–15.8) at the last follow-up visit on IDPN (p = 0.0019). Fifteen (26.8%) patients achieved a MIS reduction ≥ 5 points after IDPN. As compared to baseline, IDPN significantly reduced the proportion of patients with protein-energy wasting (PEW) (89.3% versus 66.1%, respectively, p = 0.0023). Regarding analytical parameters, serum albumin (p = 0.0003) and total proteins (p = 0.0024) significantly increased after IDPN administration. Throughout the study’s follow-up period, 45 (80.4%) patients reported experiencing some type of adverse event. Conclusions: IDPN was associated with a significant improvement in the nutritional profile. Notably, our research found that the administration of IDPN over a duration > 3 months significantly improved the nutritional status of patients evaluated by the MIS test.