scholarly journals Effect of Biocompatible Peritoneal Dialysis Solution on Residual Renal Function: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 724-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun-Young Seo ◽  
Sook Hee An ◽  
Jang-Hee Cho ◽  
Hae Sun Suh ◽  
Sun-Hee Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Residual Renal Function ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction Residual renal function (RRF) plays an important role in outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) including mortality. It is, therefore, important to provide a strategy for the preservation of RRF. The objective of this study was to evaluate relative protective effects of new glucose-based multicompartmental PD solution (PDS), which is well known to be more biocompatible than glucose-based conventional PDS, on RRF compared to conventional PDS by performing a systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials. Methods We searched studies presented up to January 2014 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the COCHRANE library, and local databases. Three independent reviewers reviewed and extracted prespecified data from each study. The random effects model, a more conservative analysis model, was used to combine trials and to perform stratified analyses based on the duration of follow-up. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for risk of bias. Eleven articles with 1,034 patients were identified for the SR. Results The heterogeneity of the studies under 12 months was very high, and the heterogeneity decreased substantially when we stratified studies by the duration of follow-up. The mean difference of the studies after 12 months was 0.46 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval = 0.25 to + 0.67). Conclusion New PDS showed the effect to preserve and improve RRF for long-term use compared to conventional PDS, even though it did not show a significant difference to preserve RRF for short-term use.

scholarly journals Effects of ACEIs and ARBs on the Residual Renal Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Lei Ding ◽  
Jingjuan Yang ◽  
Lizhu Li ◽  
Yi Yang
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Active Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Residual Renal Function ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Active Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background. In peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could protect residual renal function is still controversial. To assess the effects of ACEIs and ARBs on the residual renal function and cardiovascular (CV) events in peritoneal dialysis patients, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Materials and Methods. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the CNKI database, and the Wanfang database for relevant articles from database inception to November 30, 2019. Randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was the decline in the residual renal function (RRF). Results. Thirteen trials with 625 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The average residual GFR declined by 1.79 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the ACEI/ARB group versus 1.44 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the placebo or active control group at 3 mo. The average residual GFR declined by 2.02 versus 2.06, 2.16 versus 2.72, and -0.04 versus 2.74 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the placebo or active control group at 6 months (mo), 12 mo, and 24 mo, respectively. The decline in residual GFR showed a significant difference between the ACEI/ARB group and the placebo or active control group at 12 mo (MD=−0.64 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI: -0.97~-0.32; I2=44%; P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed in Kt/V, urinary protein excretion, weekly creatinine clearance, CV events, or serum potassium levels. Conclusions. In the present study, we found that the use of ACEIs and ARBs, especially long-term treatment, decreased the decline of RRF in patients on PD. ACEIs and ARBs do not cause an additional risk of side effects.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-Lan Sun ◽  
Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Tean Ma ◽  
Hong Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals Comparison of nephroscopy and cystoscopy used in the treatment of bladder stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Gou ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Bladder Stones ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of nephroscopy and cystoscopy in transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) for bladder stones (BS). Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to January 2021 for studies assessing the effect of different types of endoscopes among patients who underwent TUCL. The search strategy and study selection process were in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Results Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no difference in stone-free rate (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.98–1.02, p = 1.00) between the two groups and nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), and all patients were rendered stone free. Use of the nephroscope significantly shortened the operative time compared with the cystoscope group (RR= − 26.26, CI = − 35.84 to − 16.68, p < 0.00001), and there was significant heterogeneity (I2= 87%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in mean urethral entries (RR = 0.66, CI = − 0.71 to − 2.04, p = 0.35), hospitalization (MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.07 to 0.23, p = 0.31) or total complication rate (RR=1.37, 95% CI = 0.47–4.00, p = 0.56) between the two groups. Conclusions In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrates that both nephroscopy and cystoscopy have high stone clearance efficiency, low rates of complications and short hospitalizations. The mean urethral entries depend on the treatment method for large stone fragments. However, the use of nephroscopy can significantly reduce the operative time.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-lan Sun ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Piao Zhang ◽  
yong zhang
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cartilage ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 194760352093117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Filardo ◽  
Davide Previtali ◽  
Francesca Napoli ◽  
Christian Candrian ◽  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective To evaluate effectiveness, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis compared to placebo and other intraarticular treatments. Design PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as the gray literature were searched on January 17, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP injections with placebo or other injectable treatments, in any language, on humans, were included. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane guidelines; quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE guidelines. Results Thirty-four RCTs, including 1403 knees in PRP groups and 1426 in control groups, were selected. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score favored PRP, with a statistically and clinically significant difference versus placebo at 12-month follow-up ( P = 0.02) and versus HA (hyaluronic acid) at 6-month ( P < 0.001) and 12-month ( P < 0.001) follow-ups. A clinically significant difference favoring PRP versus steroids was documented for VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain ( P < 0.001), KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) pain ( P < 0.001), function in daily activities ( P = 0.001), and quality of life ( P < 0.001) at 6-month follow-up. However, superiority of PRP did not reach the minimal clinically important difference for all outcomes, and quality of evidence was low. Conclusions The effect of platelet concentrates goes beyond its mere placebo effect, and PRP injections provide better results than other injectable options. This benefit increases over time, being not significant at earlier follow-ups but becoming clinically significant after 6 to 12 months. However, although substantial, the improvement remains partial and supported by low level of evidence. This finding urges further research to confirm benefits and identify the best formulation and indications for PRP injections in knee OA.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-lan Sun ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Piao Zhang ◽  
yong zhang
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals Comparison of Anterior Versus Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 1124-1133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qicong Zhu ◽  
Fengchao Shi ◽  
Weihua Cai ◽  
Jianling Bai ◽  
Jin Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Posterior Approach ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Thoracolumbar Fractures ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Perioperative Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference

Despite extensive research on thoracolumbar fractures, controversy still exists about which approach is the most appropriate. Lack of evidence-based practice may result in patients being treated inappropriately. The objective of study was to perform a systematic review of the effectiveness of the anterior and posterior approaches in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. We conducted searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, searching for relevant trials up to August 2013 that compared anterior and posterior for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. The key words “anterior,” “posterior,” “thoracolumbar fracture,” “CCT,” and “RCT” were used. We assessed all included literature by using the Cochrane handbook (version 5.1). The results were expressed as the mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk difference for dichotomous outcomes, with a 95% confidence interval, using RevMan version 5.2. There were 3 randomized controlled trials and 11 clinical controlled trials included. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between groups regarding Cobb angle, the Frankel scale, ASIA/JOA motor score, complications, and number of patients returning to work. Compared with the anterior approach, the posterior approach demonstrated superior canal decompression. In the burst fracture subgroup, operative times were significantly shorter and perioperative blood loss was less in the posterior approach group. The posterior approach is more effective for canal decompression, operative times, and perioperative blood loss. However, because of the lack of randomized controlled trials, and because of large sample size studies, heterogeneity was significant between reports. The optimal treatment for thoracolumbar fractures requires further study.

scholarly journals Efficacy of High-Dose Polyclonal Intravenous Immunoglobulin in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Vaccines ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Daniele Focosi ◽  
Massimo Franchini ◽  
Marco Tuccori ◽  
Mario Cruciani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Intravenous Immunoglobulin ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Although several therapeutic strategies have been investigated, the optimal treatment approach for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy in COVID-19. Methods: A systematic literature search using appropriate medical subject heading (MeSH) terms was performed through Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of IVIG versus placebo/standard of care. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including the risk bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measures of treatment effect were mean differences (MD) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcome measures and risk ratio (RR) or MD for binary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from individual studies, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: A total of 2401 COVID-19 patients from 10 studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs)) were included in the analysis. Participants received IVIG or placebo/standard of care. The use of IVIG was not associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.50, 95% CIs 0.18–1.36, p = 0.17 for RCTs; RR 0.95, 95% CIs 0.61–1.58, p = 0.94 for non-RCTs; low certainty of evidence). IVIG significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD −2.24, 95% CIs −3.20/−1.27; p = 0.00001; low certainty of evidence), although this difference was significant only for studies evaluating moderate COVID-19 patients. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of overall and serious adverse events between IVIG recipients and controls (very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: The current evidence from the literature does not support the use of IVIG in COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Does Minimizing Ventricular Pacing Reduce the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Ishan Lakhani ◽  
Mengqi Gong ◽  
Cheuk Wai Wong ◽  
George Bazoukis ◽  
Konstantinos P. Letsas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Right ventricular pacing disrupts atrioventricular synchrony and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, whether algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing reduce the incidence of AF remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of AF between minimizing ventricular pacing and conventional pacing protocols in patients with pacemakers implanted.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to August 1, 2017, for randomized controlled trials that reported the incidence of AF in patients with and without the use of algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing.Results: Eleven studies comprising 5705 participants (61% males, mean age 71 years [standard deviation 11 years]) were finally included in the analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 24 months. Use of algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing significantly reduced the incidence of AF, with an odds ratio of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.55‐1.00; P<0.05). There was moderate heterogeneity among studies (I2=63%).Conclusions: The incidence of AF was reduced by 26% with use of algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing. The incorporation of such algorithms in routine clinical practice should in theory lead to a decrease in AF-related morbidity and mortality.

Comparison of Icodextrin and Glucose Solutions for Long Dwell Exchange in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hualin Qi ◽  
Chen Xu ◽  
Haidong Yan ◽  
Jun Ma
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Residual Renal Function ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundIcodextrin is widely used in peritoneal dialysis (PD); however, the safety and efficacy of icodextrin are unclear. In the present study, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared icodextrin and glucose for the once-daily long dwell in PD.MethodsElectronic searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to select all eligible studies. Eligible studies, as determined by consensus using predefined criteria, were reviewed, and data were extracted onto a standard form.ResultsIn the 9 RCTs that were identified, patients using icodextrin were found to have much greater net ultrafiltration (UF) and a lower incidence of negative net UF compared to patients using 1.5%, 2.5%, and 4.25% glucose solutions. Additionally, icodextrin has a markedly increased UF efficiency ratio and peritoneal clearance of creatinine and urea nitrogen, but residual renal function was not different from patients using glucose solutions for PD. No significant differences were observed between icodextrin and glucose groups with respect to risk of mortality, peritonitis, and total adverse events. Although rashes occurred significantly more often in icodextrin groups, few differences were noted between icodextrin and glucose groups when withdrawal rates secondary to adverse events were compared.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that icodextrin provides patients with greater fluid removal and small solute clearance and does not cause any damage to residual renal function. Icodextrin is particularly appropriate for use in patients with high peritoneal transport status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document