Peritoneal Dialysis in

Vet e r i n a r y M e d i c i n e
a b,
Rachel L. Cooper, DVM , Mary Anna Labato, DVM *

KEYWORDS
 Peritoneal dialysis  Acute kidney injury  Anuria  Urea kinetic

Peritoneal dialysis is a modality of renal replacement therapy that is commonly used in

human medicine for treatment of chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney failure.
Peritoneal dialysis employs the same principle as other forms of renal replacement
therapy: the removal of uremic solutes by diffusion across a semipermeable
membrane. In hemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy, blood is
passed through straw-like semipermeable membranes, which are bathed in
a dialysate. By contrast, peritoneal dialysis uses the peritoneum as a membrane across
which fluids and uremic solutes are exchanged. In this process, dialysate is instilled into
the peritoneal cavity and, through the process of diffusion and osmosis, water, toxins,
electrolytes, and other small molecules are allowed to equilibrate. The dialysate is then
removed and discarded, carrying with it uremic toxins and water. This process is
repeated continuously as needed to achieve control of uremia.
Although peritoneal dialysis is used primarily for the treatment of chronic kidney
disease in people, reports from as early as 1923 demonstrate its role in treating acute
kidney injury.1 Its use has also been described for removal of dialyzable toxins and to
treat pancreatitis, electrolyte and acid base abnormalities, refractory congestive heart
failure, and inborn errors of metabolism. In veterinary medicine, the most common use
of peritoneal dialysis is to treat acute kidney injury, though it can be used for any of the
aforementioned indications as well.

PHYSIOLOGY OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS

The peritoneum is the serosal membrane that lines the abdominal cavity. The parietal
peritoneum lines the abdominal cavity and is continuous with the visceral peritoneum,
which lines the abdominal organs. The visceral peritoneum accounts for 80% of the peri-
toneal surface area; with the parietal peritoneum making up the remaining 20%.2 The
peritoneum has a surface area that is approximately the same as that of a normal

The authors have nothing to disclose.

a
Department of Clinical Sciences, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, University of
Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
b
Small Animal Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary
Medicine, Tufts University, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA 01536, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]

Vet Clin Small Anim 41 (2011) 91–113

doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2010.10.002 vetsmall.theclinics.com
0195-5616/11/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
92 Cooper & Labato

body surface area; typically 1 to 2 m2 in an adult.2 Children have a disproportionately

larger peritoneal surface area than adults.2 Arterial circulation to the peritoneum is
supplied by the cranial mesenteric artery for the visceral peritoneum and by the lumbar,
intercostal, and epigastric arteries for the parietal peritoneum. The portal system
provides drainage for the visceral peritoneum while the caudal vena cava drains the pari-
etal peritoneum. One important clinical implication of this anatomic variant is that drugs
that are absorbed via the visceral peritoneum undergo first-pass clearance by the liver.
Lymphatic drainage is provided through stomata in the diaphragmatic peritoneum.
Microscopically, the peritoneum is made up of a single layer of mesothelial cells
overlying an interstitial layer. The mesothelial cells are covered by microvilli, which
contribute greatly to the large overall surface area of the peritoneum. These mesothe-
lial cells are ultrastructurally similar to the type II pneumocytes of the lung, producing
a film of glycosaminoglycans that function to lubricate and protect the abdominal
viscera.3 The interstitial layer is made of a mucopolysaccharide matrix with collage-
nous fibers, peritoneal capillaries, and lymphatics. A basement membrane composed
of type IV collagen lies between the mesothelial cells and the interstitium. The intersti-
tium has been described as a 2-phase system, consisting of a balance between
a water-rich colloid-poor phase and a colloid-rich water-poor phase.3 All of these
structures act as barriers between fluid instilled into the peritoneal cavity and the
endothelial surface of capillaries (Fig. 1).
The 3-pore model of peritoneal transport treats the capillary as the limiting factor in
solute and water transport across the peritoneum (Fig. 2). This model proposes that
pores of 3 different sizes mediate this transport. Large pores are present in small
numbers, contributing less than 0.1% of total number of pores; they are significantly
larger than the other pores, with a radius of 20 to 40 nm. These pores transport
macromolecules such as proteins via convection. Small pores have a radius of 4 to
6 nm and are present in large numbers, accounting for 90% to 93% of total pore
area.4 These pores are thought to be involved in transport of small solutes such as
urea, creatinine, sodium, and potassium in association with water.2 The amount of
transport is limited by the total number of small pores. Ultrasmall pores have a radius
of less than 0.8 nm. These pores are involved in water transport only, and are thought
to represent the same aquaporin-1 molecules that are present in the renal proximal
tubules and red blood cells.2 Ultrasmall pores account for 40% of total capillary
ultrafiltration.4 The rate of transport through the ultrasmall pores is determined

Fig. 1. Histology of the peritoneal membrane. (Courtesy of JD Williams, Cardiff University,

Cardiff, Wales.)
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 93

Fig. 2. The 3-pore model. (From Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dial-
ysis. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 284; with permission.)

primarily by osmotic gradient, in contrast to the small pores that are affected by mainly
nonosmotic factors.
Diffusion is the most important mechanism responsible for solute transport in
peritoneal dialysis. The dialysate, which contains high concentrations of glucose,
encourages diffusion of these substances from dialysate into the bloodstream.
Molecules in the blood that are not present in high concentrations in the dialysate
such as uremic toxins and potassium diffuse from the peritoneal blood into the dialysate
(Fig. 3) Acid-base disturbances are corrected by having higher concentrations of
bicarbonate and lactate in the dialysate than in the plasma, which allows for diffusion
of these substances from the dialysate into the body. The rate of diffusion of individual
solutes is dependent on many factors, such as the concentration gradient, the
molecular weight of solute, and the peritoneal surface area.
Ultrafiltration describes the movement of water across a semipermeable membrane,
and can be driven by hydrostatic or osmotic forces. In peritoneal dialysis, a highly
osmolar dialysate (the glucose rich solution) causes water to leave the body and enter
the dialysate by osmosis. As the water crosses the peritoneal membrane, it carries small
molecules into the dialysate (eg, urea, creatinine). This process is also known as
convection. Ultrafiltration is an important clinical aspect of peritoneal dialysis that
allows manipulation of fluid balance in the patient.
In humans, there is significant variation in the rate of solute transport among
different peritoneal dialysis patients. High transporters diffuse substances well but
have a low rate of ultrafiltration. Conversely, low transporters have high rates of

Fig. 3. The process of diffusion across the semipermeable peritoneal membrane.

94 Cooper & Labato

ultrafiltration but take a longer time for substances to diffuse across the peritoneum.
This transport is routinely determined using a peritoneal equilibration test. No studies
on peritoneal transport have been performed in veterinary patients. It is not known
whether cats or dogs have significant individual variation in their transport status,
which may be a contributing factor to the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis in
individual veterinary patients.

INDICATIONS FOR PERITONEAL DIALYSIS

The first and foremost indication for peritoneal dialysis in dogs and cats is anuric acute
kidney injury refractory to fluid therapy. Dialysis may also be indicated in nonanuric
patients with severe acute uremia, in which the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) exceeds
100 mg/dL, or in which the creatinine exceeds 10 mg/dL.5 Peritoneal dialysis can
also be used to stabilize patients with a uroabdomen or urinary tract obstructions prior
to surgery or anesthesia.
Peritoneal dialysis can also be used for a variety of intoxications and metabolic
abnormalities. It can be used to remove dialyzable toxins such as ethylene glycol,
ethanol, barbiturates, propoxyphene, and hydantoin, and correct electrolyte
disturbances such as hyperkalemia.6,7 However, peritoneal dialysis is limited in its ability
to remove toxins from the blood and is about one-eighth to one-fourth as efficient as
hemodialysis.8 In situations where hemodialysis, hemofiltration, or charcoal hemoperfu-
sion is unavailable, vascular access is difficult to obtain or the refractory hypotension
makes hemodialysis a high-risk procedure, peritoneal dialysis may be indicated.
When performing peritoneal dialysis for intoxications that have life-threatening side
effects (hyperkalemia, ethylene glycol), very frequent exchanges should be made to
promote a faster rate of clearance.9 Electrolyte abnormalities such as hyperkalemia
and hypercalcemia can also be effectively managed with peritoneal dialysis.
Life-threatening derangements in body temperature can also be corrected with
peritoneal dialysis. The concentration of electrolytes in the dialysate solution should
be similar to that in plasma to prevent extreme or rapid electrolyte fluctuations.9 In cases
of life-threatening hypothermia, dialysate at a temperature of 42 C to 43 C is instilled
into the abdomen with a goal rewarming rate of 1 C to 2 C per hour.7 In cases of
life-threatening hyperthermia, dialysate should be administered at room temperature.9
Peritoneal dialysis has also been extensively used in human neonates with disorders
of the urea cycle.7 It is used as an emergency tool for correction of hyperammonemia
along with additional medical management to stabilize this condition until liver
transplant. It has recently been demonstrated that detoxification is more efficient
with hemodialysis or continuous hemofiltration.10 No studies have been done in
veterinary patients to evaluate the utility of peritoneal dialysis to treat life-threatening
hyperammonemia secondary to hepatic encephalopathy or urea cycle deficiencies.
Congestive heart failure refractory to medical management is another indication in
human medicine for peritoneal dialysis. A recent study looked at patients with severe
congestive heart failure, and found decreased mortality with use of hemofiltration
followed by automated peritoneal dialysis as compared with patients with similar sever-
ities of heart disease.11 This concept can also be applied to animals with severe volume
overload. Exchanges should be performed hourly if the fluid overload is severe, and
a markedly hyperosmotic (4.5%) dialysate should be used to encourage ultrafiltration.

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR PERITONEAL DIALYSIS

Peritoneal dialysis is contraindicated in patients with peritoneal adhesions, fibrosis, or

malignancies.12 The presence of adhesions or fibrosis effectively decreases the surface
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 95

area and the efficiency of peritoneal dialysis. Peritoneal dialysis is also contraindicated in
patients with pleuroperitoneal leaks because of their predisposition to develop pleural
effusion during dialysis.12 Relative contraindications exist for patients with recent
abdominal surgery, and inguinal or abdominal hernias because of the risk for herniation
caused by increased intraperitoneal pressures. Patients in a severe hypercatabolic state
such as burn victims or extremely malnourished states have a relative contraindication
due to their propensity for protein loss through the peritoneum during dialysis.6 Animals
with recent abdominal surgery, especially gastrointestinal surgery, are at risk for dehis-
cence and infection during peritoneal dialysis because of the increased intraperitoneal
pressure and potential fluid leakage through the incision site.13

CATHETERS AND CATHETER PLACEMENT

The ideal peritoneal dialysis catheter allows adequate inflow and outflow of dialysate,
prevents subcutaneous leakage, and minimizes infection, in both the peritoneal cavity
and the subcutaneous tissue.14 Many of the common complications associated with
peritoneal dialysis in veterinary medicine are catheter related, so it is important to consider
different catheter types and placement techniques when choosing this modality.
Acute peritoneal dialysis catheters are designed to be placed percutaneously
cage-side with a stylet in animals with sedation. These catheters are typically straight
with holes at the distal end on the catheter tip. Acute catheters generally do not have
cuffs to protect against bacterial infection and catheter migration, which is likely to
lead to a high rate of peritonitis with prolonged use.3 There is also an increased risk
of bowel perforation during placement of these catheters.14
Chronic peritoneal dialysis catheters have specific designs in both the intraperito-
neal and extraperitoneal portions of the catheters to reduce side effects and minimize
clogging. Chronic peritoneal dialysis catheters are generally made from silicone
rubber or polyurethane. The intraperitoneal portion of the catheters has numerous
side holes at the distal tip to allow free flow of dialysate. The distal end of the peritoneal
dialysis catheter may be straight or coiled. The coiled tip may help minimize outflow
obstruction. The portion of the catheter that leaves the abdomen often has 1 or 2
Dacron cuffs. The most distal cuff is typically embedded in the abdominal rectus
muscle. In humans the superficial cuff is placed subcutaneously 2 cm from the
catheter exit site on the abdominal wall. The Dacron cuffs cause a local inflammatory
response that causes fibrous and granulation tissue to form. This tissue fixes the
catheter in position and prevents bacterial migration from the skin into the peritoneal
cavity.14 Some studies have shown that the single-cuff catheter is associated with
a shorter time to peritonitis, a shorter catheter survival time, and a higher rate of exit
site infections, although other studies have found no difference between numbers of
cuffs.15–17 The extraperitoneal portion of the catheter can be straight or can have
a permanent bend between the 2 cuffs. The permanent bend or “Swan-neck”
catheters are produced to have a subcutaneous tunnel that is directed downward
to decrease the risk of catheter-related infections in humans.
Several different catheter types have been used to perform acute peritoneal dialysis
in veterinary medicine. Simple tube catheters with trocars can be placed in conscious
animals using local anesthetics in emergency situations.6 A percutaneous cystotomy
tube catheter (Stamey percutaneous suprapubic catheter set; Cook, Spencer, IN,
USA) has also been reported as being used in veterinary medicine (Fig. 4).12
When placing a peritoneal dialysis catheter that is expected to function for longer than
3 days, a more permanent peritoneal dialysis catheter is recommended. A surgical
omentectomy is also recommended, due to the high risk of omental entrapment.6 No
96 Cooper & Labato

Fig. 4. Stamey percutaneous suprapubic catheter (Cook, Spencer, IN, USA).

studies have been done in veterinary medicine to evaluate the utility of any particular
peritoneal dialysis catheter. In human medicine, the Tenckoff catheter is the most
widely used chronic peritoneal dialysis catheter. This silicone catheter has a straight
extraperitoneal portion and either a straight or curled intraperitoneal portion with
multiple holes in the distal end. The Tenckhoff catheter can have 1 or 2 cuffs (Fig. 5).
The Fluted T catheter (Ash Advantage peritoneal dialysis catheter; Medigroup,
Aurora, IL, USA) was introduced in the 1990s, and research studies in dogs reported
good results when compared with the Tenckhoff (coiled tube) catheters.18 This cath-
eter is made of silicone with 2 Dacron cuffs; it is a T-shaped catheter made of long
grooves or flutes (Fig. 6). These flutes are designed to offer minimal resistance to
the efflux and influx of fluids while preventing omental adhesion.19 The T-portion of
the catheter is designed to be placed against the parietal peritoneum in a cranial-
caudal direction. The fluted aspect of this catheter is 30 cm in length, but can be
cut to accommodate smaller patients. This catheter has not been used widely in
human medicine. Although its use has been reported in veterinary medicine, there
are no studies evaluating its utility.
Other catheters that have been used in veterinary medicine include the 15F Blake
surgical drain (Johnson and Johnson, Arlington, TX, USA), the Swan Neck straight
or curled Missouri catheter (Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield, MA, USA), the 10-cm-
length PD catheter, coaxial design (Global Veterinary Products, New Buffalo, MI,
USA), Quinton Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis catheter (Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield,
MA, USA), and the Dawson-Mueller drainage catheter (Cook, Spencer, IN, USA)
(Figs. 7–10).20–23 These catheters are all placed surgically.

Fig. 5. Tenckhoff curl and straight catheter (Medcomp, Harleyville, PA, USA).
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 97

Fig. 6. Ash Advantage fluted T catheter (Medicgroup, Naperville, IL, USA).

The method of placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is dependent on the cath-

eter itself, the stability of the patient, and the expected length of peritoneal dialysis. In
emergent situations where peritoneal dialysis is expected to be less than 72 hours,
percutaneous placement of a short-term catheter is warranted. To place a percuta-
neous peritoneal dialysis catheter the animal is placed in dorsal recumbency, and
the abdomen is shaved and sterilely prepared. It is critical that every opportunity is
taken to preserve aseptic technique to prevent catheter-related infections. A stab inci-
sion is made 3 to 5 cm lateral to the umbilicus, in the direction of the pelvis.24 The
trocar is tunneled subcutaneously for several centimeters before insertion into the
abdomen. The catheter is then threaded over the trocar until fully in the abdomen.6
A purse-string suture can be placed to secure the catheter in place at its insertion
site for temporary peritoneal dialysis catheters. Suture material has been reported
to increase the risk of tunnel infections in human patients; therefore, peritoneal dialysis
catheters with Dacron cuffs are indicated for long-term use.6 A report in the human
literature describes fluoroscopic guidance in placement of percutaneous peritoneal
dialysis catheters; this technique has not been reported in veterinary medicine.25
When the peritoneal dialysis catheter is to be left in place for a longer period of time,
a more permanent catheter should be placed. Long-term peritoneal dialysis catheters
can be placed either laparoscopically (with a peritoneoscope) or surgically. Both lapa-
roscopic and surgical catheter placement allow visualization of catheter placement,
and the ability to take biopsies and to perform a partial omentectomy. The

Fig. 7. Blake surgical drain (Johnson and Johnson, Arlington, TX, USA).
98 Cooper & Labato

Fig. 8. Swan Neck straight and curled Missouri catheter (Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield, MA,
USA).

disadvantages of these techniques include longer placement time, greater cost, and
larger incision. Many of the catheters that were designed for percutaneous placement
for humans are best placed surgically in dogs and cats. A recent study in healthy dogs
describes a new method for implanting disk-type peritoneal dialysis catheters through
small incisions, with good outcome; however, these catheters are no longer commer-
cially available.26 Once surgically placed, peritoneal dialysis catheters ideally should
not be used for at least 10 to 14 days. This delay allows wound healing and scar forma-
tion around the cuffs, minimizing leakage of dialysate around the catheter site. This
recommendation is easier to follow in human patients, in whom the peritoneal dialysis
is generally used for more chronic kidney disease, rather than the acute kidney injury
that is usually treated in veterinary patients. In veterinary patients that require imme-
diate usage, the catheter should be leak tested to ensure a tight seal has been
achieved. For the first 24 to 48 hours after placement large volumes of dialysate should
not be used, in order to minimize intraperitoneal pressure.5

SYSTEM SETUP

Once the peritoneal dialysis catheter is placed, it should be attached to a closed

collection system and carefully bandaged into position with dry sterile dressings.
The use of topical antibiotic ointment is not recommended because it can macerate
the exit-site tissue and inhibit fibroblast proliferation.12 The peritoneal dialysis catheter

Fig. 9. Coaxial design (Global Veterinary Products, New Buffalo, MI, USA).
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 99

Fig. 10. Quinton Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis catheter (Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield, MA,
USA).

is connected to the dialysate bag by a length of plastic tubing called a transfer set.
Older references discuss a straight transfer (straight spike), in which the same bag
that contains dialysate becomes the effluent bag after the dialysate is instilled into
the abdomen.5 However, this method of performing peritoneal dialysis was associated
with higher incidence of bacterial peritonitis and is not currently recommended.27 The
Y transfer set consists of a Y-shaped piece of tubing connected to both a fresh dial-
ysate bag and a drainage container (Fig. 11). During the exchange, the dialysate is
allowed to flow into the effluent bag. Before instilling fresh dialysate into the perito-
neum, a small volume of fresh dialysate solution is drained from the dialysate bag
directly into the effluent bag, bypassing the patient. This step is thought to flush
bacteria that were introduced into the system at the time of connection. After the flush
is done, the instillation of dialysate into the peritoneum can be performed. Newer
double-bag systems have been introduced in which the Y-set is already connected
to the fresh dialysate bag. This placement allows for one less connection (and oppor-
tunity for contamination) to be made at each cycle. A recent Cochrane review
comparing the 3 different transfer types and the risk of peritonitis found a clear advan-
tage over the straight spike system with both the Y-set and double-bag transfer
systems. There was no significant advantage shown for the double-bag system
over the Y-set system, although studies available for review were more limited.28
A strict sterile technique should be followed at all times when handling the peritoneal
dialysis catheter and collection system. All connections should be wrapped in povi-
done-iodine connection shields or chlorhexidine-soaked dressings covered with
sterile gauze.12 All injection ports should be scrubbed with either chlorhexidine or
povidone-iodine for 2 minutes before injections, and medication vials should be
swabbed for 2 minutes before use. To reduce the risk of contamination, multiple-
dose vials should not be used for dialysate additives. Hands should be washed
thoroughly and sterile gloves should be worn while handling dialysate lines or bags.
Catheter movement at the exit site should be minimized; the catheter site should be
washed with chlorhexidine or iodine scrub and dried with sterile gauze once daily,
and wrapped in dry sterile bandages. The catheter site and dry bandages should be
changed more frequently should strike-through occur. The dialysis prescription should
be adjusted to minimize the occurrence of exit-site leaks. The dialysate effluent should
be examined for cloudiness at every exchange. Should any concern arise, the effluent
should be submitted for culture. The effluent should be looked at once daily for any
indication of peritonitis. These guidelines cannot be emphasized enough regarding
prevention of infection during peritoneal dialysis.19
100 Cooper & Labato

Fig. 11. An illustration of the Y-shaped drain set.

DIALYSATE

The specific composition of dialysate is an important factor to consider when

performing peritoneal dialysis. Different dialysate solutions differ based on their buffer,
electrolytes, and/or the osmotic agents used (Table 1). The ideal dialysate should
promote solute clearance with little absorption of osmotic agents, provide deficient
electrolytes and nutrients, correct acid-base problems, inhibit the growth of microor-
ganisms, and be inert to the peritoneum.29 Biocompatibility of dialysate solutions is an
intensely studied field. It has been shown that the low pH, lactate buffer, high glucose
content, high osmolality, and the presence of glucose degradation products (GDPs)
generated during production and sterilization of dialysate can be harmful to the
peritoneum.30 Peritoneal biopsies in patients who have received long-term peritoneal
dialysis showed ultrastructural changes that may be secondary to low biocompatibility
of peritoneal dialysis solutions.31 The significance of these findings is unknown, but
trends are toward more biocompatible dialysate solutions.
Options for buffers in dialysate historically have included lactate, bicarbonate, and
acetate. One of the initial buffers used in peritoneal dialysis solutions was acetate.
Bicarbonate is generated when acetate and coenzyme A (CoA) are activated by
acetate thiokinase to form acetyl CoA. The use of acetate as a buffer in dialysate
solutions has fallen out of favor. Due to its low pH, acetate can produce pain during
dialysate inflow. Studies have also shown that it produces vasodilation and alteration
of the peritoneum, leading to loss of ultrafiltration and development of sclerosing
peritonitis.32,33 Lactate is the most common buffer used as dialysate today. The
buffering effects of lactate are produced through their metabolism in the liver via the
Krebs cycle or via gluconeogenesis, with the end product being bicarbonate.
However, lactate has been shown in studies to be toxic to mesothelial cells when
combined with a low pH, as in typical dialysate solutions.34 Bicarbonate was not
 Table 1
Composition of a commercially available peritoneal dialysate solution

Manufacturer pH Osmotic Agent Na (mM) Ca (mM) Mg (mM) Lactate (mM) Bicarb (mM) Pouches
Dianeal PD1 Baxter 5.5 Glucose 132 1.75 0.75 35 0 1
Dianeal PD2 Baxter 5.2 Glucose 132 1.75 0.25 40 0 1
Dianeal PD4 Baxter 5.5 Glucose 132 1.25 0.25 40 0 1
Stay-Safe 2/4/3 FMC 5.5 Glucose 134 1.75 0.5 35 0 1
Stay-Safe 17/19/18 FMC 5.5 Glucose 143 1.25 0.5 35 0 1
Gambrosol Trio 10 Gambro 6.3 Glucose 132 1.75 0.25 40 0 3
Gambrosol Trio 40 Gambro 6.3 Glucose 132 1.35 0.25 40 0 3

Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine

Nutrineal Baxter 6.5 Amino acids 132 1.25 0.25 40 0 1
Extraneal Baxter 5.5 Icodextrin 132 1.75 0.25 40 0 1
Physioneal Baxter 7.4 Glucose 132 1.75 0.25 10 25 2
Balance FMC 7.4 Glucose 134 1.25 0.5 34 2 2
1.75
bicaVera FMC 7.4 Glucose 134 1.75 0.5 0 34 2
bicaNova FMC 7.4 Glucose 134 1.25 0.5 0 39 2

From Heimburger O, Blake PG. Apparatus for peritoneal dialysis. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia:
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 340; with permission.

101
102 Cooper & Labato

initially used as a buffer for dialysate solutions because during the sterilization process
calcium and magnesium would precipitate into salts. Bicarbonate solution has a higher
pH than the lactate- or acetate-buffered solutions, and glucose would caramelize at
the higher pH, so this solution was initially abandoned. However, because bicarbonate
is a more biocompatible solution, this buffer has been studied more readily in recent
years. To avoid the problems of precipitation and caramelization, bicarbonate-based
solutions are formulated in 2-chambered bags. The chambers are mixed immediately
before instillation of the dialysate into the peritoneum. There has been significant
research describing improved biocompatibility of bicarbonate-based dialysate
solutions, but no evidence has arisen that bicarbonate-based solutions improve
long-term outcome.35–37
Commercially available dialysate solutions contain sodium, magnesium, calcium, and
chloride in varying concentrations. Potassium is generally not included in dialysate
solutions, but can be added if patients become hypokalemic during treatment.
Osmotic agents can be grouped into low molecular weight agents and high
molecular weight agents. Low molecular weight agents that have been tried include
glucose, glycerol, sorbitol, amino acids, xylitol, and fructose.3 The standard dialysate
solution contains glucose as the osmotic agent. Glucose-based dialysate comes in 3
different concentrations: 1.5%, 2.5%, and 4.25%. Dialysis performed for the removal
of uremic toxins is generally done using a 1.5% solution. Use of a hypertonic glucose
solution is reserved for overhydrated patients in whom the highly osmolar dialysate
causes water to leave the body and enter the dialysate by osmosis. Peritoneal dialysis
can be performed using commercial dextrose-based dialysate products, or dialysate
may be formulated by adding dextrose to lactated Ringer solution.12 Adding 30 mL of
50% glucose to 1 L of lactated Ringer solution will result in a 1.5% solution.
Glucose has been shown to be safe, effective, inexpensive, and readily available.
However, glucose can also be readily absorbed, leading to metabolic derangements
such as hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, hyperinsulinemia, and obesity.38,39 Several
other problems regarding the long-term safety of glucose-based products have been
demonstrated. Glucose can directly and indirectly cause damage to the peritoneum.
High concentrations of glucose are toxic to the mesothelium.30 Glucose is also involved
in peritoneal neoangiogenesis. These new blood vessels result in the disappearance of
the osmotic gradient and a failure of ultrafiltration.30 The acidity necessary to prevent
caramelization in glucose-containing fluids can be also be harmful to the peritoneum.
GDPs are produced during heat sterilization and production of glucose-containing
solutions. GDPs are toxic to fibroblasts and enhance the production of vascular
endothelial growth factor by peritoneal cells.30 These GDPs may also lead to formation
of advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs).35 AGEs are proinflammatory, and
have been correlated with impaired peritoneal permeability and ultrafiltration failure.35
Concerns over the use of glucose-based dialysate products have led to the
investigation of other osmotic agents for peritoneal dialysis in humans. Amino
acid–containing peritoneal dialysis solutions have been used to improve nutrition status
of peritoneal dialysis patients. Recent studies have shown improvement in nutrition
status of patients when given a 1.1% solution of amino acid–containing dialysate,
and work is ongoing in human medicine to establish the efficacy of supplementation.36
A 1.1% amino acid–based solution functions osmotically similar to a 1.5% dextrose
solution. Amino acid–based solutions can only be used once daily because they may
cause elevations in BUN and worsen acidosis.27
High molecular weight osmotic agents include polymers of glucose (polyglucose),
such as icodextrin. Icodextrin is a starch-derived water-soluble glucose polymer with
a molecular weight of 16,800. Commercially it is available in a 7.5% solution in a lactate
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 103

buffer (Extraneal; Baxter Healthcare Corp, McGraw Park, IL, USA). Icodextrin is an
iso-osmolar solution (285 mOsm/kg) that produces ultrafiltration via its oncotic effect.
Glucose polymers induce ultrafiltration across large pores via colloid oncotic effects,
as compared with hyperosmotic dextrose solutions, which induce ultrafiltration across
both small and ultrasmall pores. Absorption of icodextrin occurs via peritoneal
lymphatics, so it maintains its oncotic effect much longer than dextrose-based solutions.
Adverse events reported with icodextrin use include sterile peritonitis in humans.3
Icodextrin also causes some laboratory instruments to overestimate blood glucose level,
due to the presence of maltose in the bloodstream.30 Icodextrin is used for long dwell
times in humans undergoing chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and continuous
cyclic peritoneal dialysis, in patients with ultrafiltration failure, and in patients with
diabetes mellitus.3 The use of icodextrin in veterinary medicine has not been investigated.
Several other substances are often added to peritoneal dialysis solutions as
needed. Insulin may be added to dialysate solutions in diabetics to help control
hyperglycemia. Antibiotics may be added to the dialysate solution to treat peritonitis,
although routine use of antibiotics is discouraged. Heparin is frequently added to the
dialysate solution to prevent formation of fibrin in the peritoneal dialysis catheter.
Addition of heparin to the peritoneum does not lead to systemic anticoagulation.40

EXCHANGE PROCEDURE

When initiating peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury, the goal is not to immediately
normalize the azotemia. The initial objectives should be to normalize the patient’s hemo-
dynamic state, and acid-base and electrolyte imbalances, as well as reducing the
azotemia to a BUN of less than 60 to 100 mg/dL and a creatinine of 4.0 to 6.0 mg/dL
over 24 to 48 hours.5 For this time, one-quarter to one-half of the calculated dialysate
volume (30–40 mL/kg) should be instilled during each cycle. This amount allows the
clinician to assess the patient for abdominal distension, respiratory impairment, and
dialysate leakage. If the patient tolerates these volumes over the first 24 hours, the
amount of dialysate can be increased to 30 to 40 mL/kg per cycle.24 For patients with
normal hydration status, a dialysate containing 1.5% dextrose can be used initially.
For patients with volume overload or with high serum osmolality, either a 2.5% or
4.5% dialysate solution can be used for the initial cycles. When using hyperosmotic dial-
ysate solutions, it is imperative to monitor the patient closely to prevent hemodynamic
instability from rapid fluid shifts.
The dialysate should be warmed to 38 C to 39 C to improve permeability of the
peritoneum and for patient comfort prior to instillation into the peritoneal cavity.5
Warming should ideally be performed by heating pads or special ovens for the dialysate
bags and lines. Microwaving the dialysate bags has been performed but is strongly not
recommended by manufacturers because of uneven heating and potential “hot spots”
that may be produced during the heating process.27 In addition, overheating can lead
to chemical alterations in the dialysate solution. Warming the dialysate by immersing
the bag in warm water is also not recommended because of the risk of contamination.27
Most animals with acute kidney injury will have hyperkalemia, and most dialysate
solutions do not have potassium added. In the initial cycles of peritoneal dialysis this
is ideal; however, hypokalemia can occur with time. To prevent this, 2 to 4 mEq/L of
potassium can be added to the dialysate solution after several cycles have occurred.
Heparin at 100 to 500 U/L can also be added to the dialysate during the initial sessions
to prevent fibrin occlusion of the catheter.5
To begin a peritoneal dialysis session, the fresh dialysate bag is placed above
the patient while the effluent bag is placed below the patient. A small amount
104 Cooper & Labato

of dialysate is flushed from the dialysate bag directly into the effluent bag.
With the first instillation, 10 mL/kg of dialysate solution is then instilled by gravity
into the peritoneum over 10 minutes and is allowed to dwell for 30 to 40 minutes.
The peritoneal cavity is allowed to drain by gravity into the sterile effluent bag over
20 to 30 minutes. The system is closed off to the patient and the procedure is
then repeated with flushing of the line. One recent study reported achieving
success using a closed intermittent negative pressure system instead of
a gravity-dependent drainage period.22 During each drainage period the effluent
volume should be recorded, and the bag should be checked for color and turbidity
of the fluid. If there is any blood, turbidity, or change in character of the fluid, it
should be cultured immediately. After each cycle is completed a new cycle is
started, making this a continuous and effective process.
Meticulous records should be kept to record details of exchange volumes and fluid
balance of peritoneal dialysis patients. If the fluid balance becomes positive, or if
return of dialysate effluent is less than 90%, the dialysate solution should be
switched to 4.5% dextrose-containing solutions, to encourage ultrafiltration and
subsequent volume removal. If the fluid balance becomes negative, hyperosmotic
dialysate solution should be switched to a 1.5% solution, and steps should be taken
to avoid hypovolemia.5 Renal values, electrolytes, blood pressure, and central
venous pressures should be monitored every few hours during the initial peritoneal
dialysis period.
After the initial 24 to 48 hours of exchanges, the patient can be switched to a more
chronic peritoneal dialysis protocol. Cycle lengths of 3 to 6 hours may be instituted,
and may be increased to 3 to 4 exchanges daily as kidney function is restored. The
frequency of exchanges and length of dwell time should be adjusted based on the
patient’s degree of azotemia, normalization of acid-base status, electrolyte
disturbances, volume status, and control of uremic symptoms.5 The amount of solute
transferred across the peritoneal membrane is related to the concentration gradient
for each solute and the size of the molecule. If increased removal of a larger-sized
molecule such as creatinine is warranted, longer dwell times are instituted.12 Gradual
reduction of the number of exchanges and lengthening of the dwell time leading to
intermittent peritoneal dialysis over 3 to 4 days with frequent reassessment is
recommended before discontinuation of dialysis.12 For example, once the patient’s
BUN is less than 100 mg/dL and the creatinine is less than 5.0 mg/dL, the exchanges
should go from hourly to every 2 hours with a 1.5-hour dwell time. Dwell times and
exchanges than can be extended on a daily basis as needed. If in the acute situation
an animal receiving well-managed, aggressive peritoneal dialysis has not improved
after several days, intermittent hemodialysis, renal transplantation, or euthanasia
should be considered.
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is the delivery technique most
appropriate for animals with end-stage chronic kidney disease that require peritoneal
dialysis. Long dwell times of 4 to 6 hours are instituted, permitting the animal to be
ambulatory for most of the day.5 This technique is the one most commonly used in
humans with end-stage kidney disease, although it has never gained clinical
acceptance in veterinary medicine for chronic kidney disease.

MONITORING

Blood volume and electrolyte changes can occur rapidly in the first few days of
peritoneal dialysis. Catheter outflow obstructions can cause retention of dialysate in
the abdomen and a less efficient dialysis session. For these reasons careful monitoring
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 105

of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis is critically important. Body weight and

hydrations status should be monitored frequently. Body weight should be assessed
in the same clinical condition (ie, without dialysate in the abdomen) during each
assessment period. Central venous pressures should be checked every 4 to 6 hours
and systemic arterial blood pressures should be checked every 6 to 8 hours. Urine
output should be recorded every 4 hours. The patient’s heart rate and respiratory
rate should be recorded every 2 hours, noting whether dialysate in the abdomen
causes any respiratory difficulty. Renal values, electrolytes, and acid-base status
should be checked every 4 to 6 hours initially, and then at least twice daily. Magnesium
should be checked at least once every 3 days if it is not evaluated in more routine
bloodwork.6 Detailed flow sheets are used at the authors’ institution to assess trends
in volume and electrolyte status (Figs. 12 and 13).

EVALUATING ADEQUACY OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: UREA KINETICS

The goal of urea kinetics is to provide a measure of dialysis quality and quantity. Urea
kinetic modeling allows quantification of solute clearance that is delivered to the
patient. Although originally conceived for the monitoring of hemodialysis, urea kinetic
modeling is used as a measure of dialysis adequacy for peritoneal dialysis as well. The
amount of dialysis delivered can be expressed as Kt/V, a unit-less value that measures
fractional urea clearance.41 In peritoneal dialysis, Kt/V is obtained by analyzing
a 24-hour collection of the dialysate effluent, urine, and average blood urea level.
When calculating urea kinetics for a patient, both the peritoneal clearance and residual
renal clearance must be taken into account. Peritoneal Kt is calculated by measuring
the urea content of the 24-hour dialysate effluent, and dividing the result by average
plasma urea content for the same period. Residual renal Kt is calculated by measuring
the urea content of the 24-hour urine collection, and dividing the result by the average
urea content for the same 24-hour period. The peritoneal Kt and residual renal Kt can
then be combined to obtain the total Kt. The volume of distribution of urea is
represented by the letter V, and is calculated based on the patient’s body size and
published tables.41 To determine Kt/V, the total Kt is then divided by V. In peritoneal
dialysis, the number obtained is then multiplied by 7; by convention Kt/V is expressed
in weekly periods.
The ideal Kt/V for human peritoneal dialysis patients is not entirely known and is
a subject of much discussion. Recent prospective controlled studies have shown
that higher clearance targets once previously recommended did not improve
outcome, therefore targets have been decreased.42–44 With human peritoneal dialysis
patients, it is now recommended that the Kt/V should target 1.7 per week.45 Those
who are familiar with hemodialysis adequacy may find peritoneal dialysis Kt/V to
sound small (compared with a goal hemodialysis Kt/V of 1.2 in each of 3 weekly
sessions). However, because peritoneal dialysis is a continuous modality, it is much
more efficient than hemodialysis and the different Kt/V values cannot be compared.41
Evaluation of the Kt/V in veterinary peritoneal dialysis has not been reported in the
literature, which may be due to the difficulty in collecting effluent and urine over 24
hours, or assessing a 24-hour average of the plasma urea.
Creatinine clearance is another method of assessing dialysis adequacy in peritoneal
dialysis. The peritoneal creatinine clearance is calculated in a similar manner to the perito-
neal Kt, as discussed above. The residual renal creatinine clearance is measured by taking
an average of the urinary urea clearance and the urinary creatinine clearance; this is done
by convention, as the residual renal creatinine clearance has been shown to markedly
overestimate the true glomerular filtration rate.41 This value is then corrected for total
 106
Cooper & Labato
current
exchange
net
balance of
Please note dialysate running Current
Am or PM. only total of exchangeFluid
Also note (volume balance difference Running
date on dialysate dialysate out - of IV Total Total (total fluid in - total of
each sheet dwell outflow volume volume volume in dialysate fluids Urine fluids fluid total fluids out Fluid
Date dialysate # inflow time time time in out = balance) only in out in out = fluid diff) difference exchange Comments
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28

Fig. 12. Peritoneal dialysis flow sheet.

 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 107

Date Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Parameters
Wt (KG)
same scale
Q 8 hrs
Creat/BUN
q 12 hrs
Na/K/CL
q 12 hrs
PCV/TS/BG
Q 12 hrs
Fluid
character
Fluid
Cytology
Q 24 hrs
CVP q 8 hrs
BP q 12 hrs
Blood Gas
q 24 hrs
Kidney
Profile EOD
CBC EOD
Urine
output
q 4 hrs

Fig. 13. Flow chart used to monitor dialysis patient’s laboratory values.

body surface area as calculated by the duBois formula.41 The use of creatinine clearance
in assessing adequacy of peritoneal dialysis in veterinary patients has not been reported in
veterinary literature, likely because of the same reasons as listed here for Kt/V.
Urea reduction ratio (URR) is another measure of dialysis adequacy that is more
commonly used in hemodialysis. URR is a simple calculation of the percent reduction
in urea after a dialysis treatment. The formula for URR is as follows:

URR 5 (Pre-dialysis BUN Post-dialysis BUN)/Pre-dialysis BUN  100

URRs are not commonly used in CAPD in humans. Because these patients are at
a steady state, meaning their urea clearance rates are similar to their urea generation
rates, the URR will always approach zero. In veterinary patients with acute kidney
injury and a significantly higher urea clearance rate than the urea generation rate,
this measure may be useful to assess adequacy in peritoneal dialysis. Two recent
studies have measured urea reduction ratios in the assessment of peritoneal dialysis
adequacy.21,23 More studies are warranted to evaluate the utility of URR for assess-
ment of peritoneal dialysis adequacy in veterinary patients.

COMPLICATIONS

Complications of peritoneal dialysis are a frequent, but manageable, occurrence. The

most common complications of peritoneal dialysis include catheter occlusion prob-
lems such as dialysate retention and subcutaneous leakage of dialysate, electrolyte
disturbances, hypoalbuminemia, and bacterial peritonitis.
Dialysate retention, as defined by recovery of less than 90% of dialysate, occurred
in 20% to 77% of animals reported in several retrospective studies.20,21,23,46 Common
causes of dialysate retention are catheter occlusion due to omental entrapment or
fibrin accumulation in the peritoneal dialysis catheter. Performing a partial omentec-
tomy would likely reduce the frequency of this complication. In one study, 100%
(8/8) of cats with percutaneously placed peritoneal dialysis catheters developed
108 Cooper & Labato

retention of dialysate, whereas only 54.5% of cats with surgically placed peritoneal
dialysis catheters developed retention of dialysate.21 Two cats with percutaneously
placed peritoneal dialysis catheters eventually required surgical placement of perito-
neal dialysis catheters because of catheter outflow obstruction problems. One of
these cats had a surgically placed catheter, but partial omentectomy was not per-
formed and the cat continued to have complications involving retained dialysate.
Later, a partial omentectomy was performed and fewer complications were reported
postoperatively.21 One recent retrospective study noted a low rate of dialysate
retention, which was attributed to a closed intermittent negative pressure system.22
The use of negative pressure systems for dialysate drain periods requires further
investigation. Catheter design may also play a role in prevention of catheter occlusion,
but not enough data are available to make any conclusions for veterinary medicine.
Heparin (250–1000 U/L) can be added to the dialysate solution to try and prevent
catheter obstruction from fibrin accumulation, especially in the first few days of
dialysis or when the effluent is noted to be cloudy. If fibrin deposition is suspected
in the catheter, treatment with a high-pressure flush of saline, urokinase (15,000 U),
streptokinase, or tissue plasminogen activator has been recommended.14
Sequestration of dialysate subcutaneously was noted in 20% to 50% of animals in
different studies.20,21,23,46 In one study the incidence of sequestration of dialysate was
similar between cats with surgical (58.3%) and percutaneously (62.5%) placed
catheters. The immediate use of dialysis catheters after placement may contribute
to the high rate of dialysate leakage. In humans undergoing peritoneal dialysis, it is
recommended to wait for 2 to 4 weeks before the use of newly placed peritoneal
dialysis catheters.14
The prevalence of hypoalbuminemia in animals undergoing peritoneal dialysis has
been reported to be 41% to 90%.20,21,23,46 Low dietary protein intake, gastrointestinal
or renal protein loss, dialysate loss, uremic catabolism, and concurrent disease may
all contribute to the hypoalbuminemia seen in animals undergoing peritoneal
dialysis.12 Protein loss may increase dramatically when peritonitis is present.1 Usually
animals that are eating well can maintain their protein levels. However, many patients
undergoing peritoneal dialysis are anorexic, or nauseated secondary to their severe
uremia or other concurrent disease. Enteral or parenteral nutritional supplementation
is critical in these patients to help maintain protein levels. A 1.1% amino acid dialysate
solution may also be used for additional nutritional supplementation. Electrolyte
abnormalities are commonly reported in peritoneal dialysis. Hyponatremia, hypochlor-
emia, hypomagnesemia, hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, and hyperglycemia have all
been reported in veterinary studies to varying extents.20–22,46
Peritonitis is diagnosed when 2 of the following 3 criteria are recognized: (1) cloudy
dialysate effluent, (2) greater than 100 inflammatory cells/mL of effluent or positive
culture results, and (3) clinical signs of peritonitis.6 Peritonitis has previously been
reported as a common side effect in veterinary medicine. The most common source
of peritonitis is contamination of the bag spike or tubing by the handler, but intestinal,
hematogenous, and exit-site sources of infection do occur.1 Several more recent
retrospective studies have reported a significantly lower rate (4%, 0%, and 0%) of
peritonitis.20–22 The lower rate of peritonitis may be due to the use of the Y-Set transfer
system as opposed to the straight-spike transfer system, or increased vigilance and
adherence to aseptic technique. In one study Escherichia coli was the major
contaminant, but other studies have reported a variety of bacteria, including Klebsiella,
Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Mycoplasma, Acinetobacter, and Providencia.21,23,46
Pleural effusion and dyspnea are uncommon side effects of peritoneal dialysis in
humans and animals. Pleural effusion can be caused by overhydration or
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 109

pleuroperitoneal leakages. Careful and frequent monitoring of the patient’s hydration

status, central venous pressures, urine output, and weight can decrease the incidence
of overhydration. If overhydration is suspected, the dialysate should be changed to
a more hyperosmotic solution to promote ultrafiltration. The concentration of blood
glucose can be tested in the pleural fluid, as elevated glucose levels would indicate
a pleuroperitoneal leak. Pleuroperitoneal leaks are a contraindication for peritoneal
dialysis, so the procedure should be immediately discontinued if a pleuroperitoneal
leak is diagnosed. Respiratory distress due to increased intra-abdominal pressure
can occur, and careful attention to the patient’s respiratory rate in relation to dialysate
inflows should be noted. Dialysate volumes should be decreased if increased
intra-abdominal pressure is contributing to ventilatory dysfunction.
Dialysis disequilibrium is a rare complication of peritoneal dialysis, characterized
by dementia, seizures, coma, and/or death.1 It is thought to occur secondary to
rapid drops in blood osmolality that often occur during the first cycles of dialysis.
Rapid solute removal causes influx of water into the brain and neurologic
dysfunction.12 Animals that have severe azotemia, hypernatremia, hyperglycemia,
or acidosis may be at increased risk.1 Dialysis disequilibrium was suspected in
2 dogs.20,46 Clinical signs exhibited included head tremors or head-bobbing in
each respective animal. One of the dogs developed clinical signs after the third
cycle, and temporary discontinuation of peritoneal dialysis helped resolve clinical
signs.46 The other dog developed clinical signs after 2 days of peritoneal dialysis
and had a documented drop in measured osmolality of 42 mOsm from the start of
dialysis to the onset of clinical signs.20 If there is suspicion for disequilibrium, the
dialysate prescription should be adjusted to include fewer exchanges or longer
dwell times to remove urea and small solutes at a slower rate. Osmolality should
be monitored closely, especially during the first few days of dialysis, to make sure
that changes are not occurring too rapidly.
In human medicine, peritoneal membrane changes and loss of ultrafiltration are
significant complications associated with peritoneal dialysis. Such conditions have
not been reported in veterinary patients. It is possible that in the short duration of
peritoneal dialysis in veterinary patients, peritoneal membrane changes do not have
time to occur, or that it is not noted in veterinary patients because monitoring dialysis
adequacy is not routinely done. If dialysis adequacy is more routinely examined, it is
possible that these complications will begin to be noted.

PERITONEAL DIALYSIS IN VETERINARY MEDICINE

There have been several case reports47–51 and retrospective studies on peritoneal
dialysis in dogs and cats. The earliest large retrospective study performed by Crisp
and colleagues46 looked at peritoneal dialysis in 25 dogs and 2 cats. Animals enrolled
in this study had either chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury. Of 21 animals
with acute kidney injury, 11 had ethylene glycol toxicity, 4 had gentamicin toxicity, 3
had leptospirosis, 1 dog had a ureteral laceration, 1 dog had thiacetarsemide
toxicosis, 1 dog had E coli pyelonephritis, and 1 dog had acute kidney injury of
unknown cause. Of the dogs diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, 3 had chronic
interstitial nephritis, 1 had chronic interstitial nephritis and pyelonephritis, and 1 had
glomerular amyloidosis. Peritoneal dialysis was effective in decreasing the magnitude
of azotemia, but the overall survival rate was very low. No data were evaluated to
predict outcome of peritoneal dialysis in this study.
Beckel and colleagues20 looked at peritoneal dialysis in a small group of dogs that
had acute kidney injury secondary to leptospirosis. This study reported a high survival
110 Cooper & Labato

rate of 80%, which is similar to that reported in studies of dogs with leptospirosis
treated with conservative management (82%) and with hemodialysis (86%).52 The
outcome is also similar to an older retrospective study from Europe in which dogs
with acute kidney injury secondary to leptospirosis and treated with peritoneal dialysis
had a survival rate of 73%.53
Two recent studies have looked at peritoneal dialysis exclusively in feline popula-
tions. A study by Dorval and Boysen22 looked at 6 cats with acute kidney injury.
The cause of acute kidney injury was determined in 4 cats, which included pyelone-
phritis in 1, suspected pyelonephritis in 1, Easter lily toxicity in 1, and traumatic acute
kidney injury following bilateral pyelectomies in 1. Five cats (83%) were discharged
from the hospital, and all 4 of the cats with 1-year follow-up had no residual renal
disease noted. A study by Cooper and Labato21 (pending publication) looked at 22
cats with acute kidney injury that received peritoneal dialysis. Causes of renal disease
included acute-on-chronic kidney disease in 7 cats, ureterolithiasis in 5, spay compli-
cations in 4 (bilateral ureteral ligation in 3 cats and hypotension under anesthesia in 1),
and 4 with Easter lily toxicity. Ten cats (45.5%) were discharged from the hospital.
There was no significant difference noted among indications for peritoneal dialysis
in predicting survival, but it should be noted that 0% of cats with toxicities were
discharged and 100% of cats with spay complications were discharged. Overall it
seemed that animals with surgically treatable disease that needed peritoneal dialysis
for stabilization and support had better prognoses than cats with nontreatable
disease.
Another recent study by Nam and colleagues23 looked at 20 dogs treated with
peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. The survival
rate was higher for the dogs with acute kidney injury (67%) than for chronic kidney
disease (37.5%).
More veterinary studies are needed to evaluate which catheters, indications for
dialysis, and prescriptions are most ideal for veterinary patients to achieve the fewest
complications and the best outcomes.

SUMMARY

Although hemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy are emerging as

safe and effective therapies for acute kidney injury, they are not readily available in
many places. Peritoneal dialysis is labor intensive, but is technically simpler than
hemodialysis and may be performed in any clinic with adequate technical assistance
and supervision. Peritoneal dialysis is an effective treatment option for veterinary
patients with acute kidney injury refractory to fluid therapy. It can be used an
adjunctive therapy to medical management, or can be used as a temporary means
to stabilize a patient prior to a surgical procedure. Peritoneal dialysis can also be
used to manage a variety of other conditions in humans, and these may be applicable
in veterinary medicine as well. Peritoneal dialysis has a high rate of complications, but
most are manageable with intense nursing care and careful attention to aseptic
technique. Understanding the physiology of dialysis and fluid transport through the
peritoneal membrane allows the clinician to make informed decisions regarding dial-
ysate dose and treatment regimen. Peritoneal dialysis is an important modality in the
treatment of acute kidney injury and toxicities in veterinary patients.

REFERENCES

1. Labato MA. Peritoneal dialysis in emergency and critical care medicine. Clin Tech
Small Anim Pract 2000;15(3):126–35.
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 111

2. Blake PG, Daugirdas JT. Physiology of peritoneal dialysis. In: Daugirdas JT,
Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 323–38.
3. Teitelbaum I, Burkart J. Peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42(5):1082–96.
4. Flessner MF. Peritoneal transport physiology: insights from basic research. J Am
Soc Nephrol 1991;2(2):122–35.
5. Cowgill LD. Application of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in the manage-
ment of renal failure. In: Osborne CA, editor. Canine and feline nephrology and
urology. Baltimore (MD): Lee and Fiberger; 1995. p. 573–84.
6. Dzyban LA, Labato MA, Ross LA, et al. Peritoneal dialysis: a tool in veterinary
critical care. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2000;10(2):91–102.
7. Gotloib L, Fudin R. Use of peritoneal dialysis and mesothelium in non primary
renal conditions. Adv Perit Dial 2009;25:2–5.
8. Winchester JF, Boldur A, Oleru C, et al. Use of dialysis and hemoperfusion in
treatment of poisoning. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of
dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 300–19.
9. Garcia-Lacaze M, Kirby R, Rudloff E. Peritoneal dialysis: not just for renal failure.
Compend Cont Educ Pract Vet 2002;24(10):758–72.
10. Chen CY, Chen YC, Fang JT, et al. Continuous arteriovenous hemodiafiltration in
the acute treatment of hyperammonemia due to ornithine transcarbamylase
deficiency. Ren Fail 2000;22:823–36.
11. Gotloib L, Fundin R, Yakubovich M, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in refractory
end-stage congestive heart failure: a challenge facing a no-win situation. Nephrol
Dial Transplant 2005;20(Suppl 7):vii32–6.
12. Pendse S, Singh A, Zawada E. Initiation of dialysis. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG,
Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–21.
13. Ross LA, Labato MA. Peritoneal dialysis. In: DiBartola SP, editor. Fluid, electrolyte,
and acid-base disorders in small animal practice. 3rd edition. St Louis (MO):
Elsevier; 2006. p. 635–49.
14. Ash SR, Daugirdas JT. Peritoneal access devices. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG,
Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 356–75.
15. Thodis E, Passadakis P, Lyrantzopooulos N, et al. Peritoneal catheters and
related infections. Int Urol Nephrol 2005;37:379–93.
16. Eklund B, Honkanen E, Kyllonen L, et al. Peritoneal dialysis access: prospective
randomized comparison of single-cuff and double-cuff straight Tenckhoff
catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997;12(12):2664–6.
17. Gokal R, Alexander S, Ash S, et al. Peritoneal catheters and exit-site practices
toward optimum peritoneal access: 1998 update. Perit Dial Int 1998;18(1):11–33.
18. Ash SR, Janle EM. T-fluted peritoneal dialysis catheter. Adv Perit Dial 1993;9(1):223–6.
19. Dzyban LA, Labato MA, Ross LA, et al. CVT update: peritoneal dialysis. In:
Bonagura JD, editor. Kirk’s current veterinary therapy XIII. Philadelphia:
Saunders; 2000. p. 859–60.
20. Beckel NF, O’Toole TE, Rozanski EA, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in the management
of acute renal failure in 5 dogs with leptospirosis. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2005;
15(3):201–5.
21. Cooper RL, Labato MA. Peritoneal dialysis in cats with acute kidney injury
[abstract 325]. In: Proceedings of the American College of Veterinary Internal
Medicine Forum. San Antonio (TX): The American College of Veterinary Medicine;
June 4–7, 2008.
112 Cooper & Labato

22. Dorval P, Boysen SR. Management of acute renal failure in cats using peritoneal
dialysis: a retrospective study of six cases (2003–2007). J Feline Med Surg 2009;
11:107–15.
23. Nam SJ, Choi R, Oh WS, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in dogs: 20 cases (2006-2008).
Journal of Veterinary Clinics 2009;26(1):23–8.
24. Parker HR. Peritoneal dialysis and hemofiltration. In: Bovee KC, editor. Canine
nephrology. Media (PA): Harwal; 1984. p. 723–53.
25. Reddy C, Dybbro PE, Guest S. Fluoroscopically guided percutaneous peritoneal
dialysis catheter placement: single center experience and review of the literature.
Ren Fail 2010;32:294–9.
26. Harada K, Uechi M, Yamano S, et al. New procedure for implanting perito-
neal dialysis catheters in small animals [abstract 324]. Proceedings of the
American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum. Anaheim (CA):
The American College of Veterinary Medicine; June 9–12, 2010.
27. Heimbürger O, Blake PG. Apparatus for peritoneal dialysis. In: Daugirdas JT,
Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis. 4th edition. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 339–55.
28. Daly C, Campbell MK, Cody JD, et al. Double bag or Y-set versus standard trans-
fer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage renal
disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:CD003078.
29. Vanholder RC, Lameire NH. Osmotic agents in peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int
Suppl 1996;56:S86.
30. Vardham A, Zweers MM, Gokal R, et al. A solutions portfolio approach to
peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int 2003;64:S114–23.
31. Williams JD, Craig KJ, Topley N, et al. Peritoneal dialysis: changes to the structure
of the peritoneal membrane and potential for biocompatible solutions. Kidney Int
Suppl 2003;84:S158–61.
32. Faller B, Marichal JF. Loss of ultrafiltration in CAPD: a role for acetate. Perit Dial
Bull 1984;4:10–3.
33. Slingeneyer A, Mion C, Mourad G, et al. Progressive sclerosing peritonitis. A late
and severe complication of maintenance peritoneal dialysis. Trans Am Soc Artif
Intern Organs 1983;29:633–40.
34. Topley N, Coles GA, Williams JD. Biocompatibility studies on peritoneal cells.
Perit Dial Int 1994;14(Suppl 3):S21–8.
35. Witowski J, Jorres A, Korybalska K, et al. Glucose degradation products in
peritoneal dialysis fluids: do they harm? Kidney Int Suppl 2003;84:S148–51.
36. Tjiong HL, Swart R, van den Berg JW, et al. Amino acid-based peritoneal
dialysis solutions for malnutrition: new perspectives. Perit Dial Int 2009;29(4):
384–93.
37. Topley N. In vitro biocompatibility of bicarbonate based peritoneal dialysis
solutions. Perit Dial Int 1997;17(1):42–7.
38. Fusshoeller A, Plail M, Grabensee B, et al. Biocompatibility pattern of a bicarbonate/
lactate-buffered peritoneal dialysis fluid in APD: a prospective, randomized study.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19(8):2101–6.
39. Sitter T, Sauter M. Impact of glucose in peritoneal dialysis: saint or sinner? Perit
Dial Int 2005;25:415.
40. Goel S, Misra M, Saran R, et al. The rationale for, and role of, heparin in peritoneal
dialysis. Adv Perit Dial 1998;14:11–4.
41. Blake PG. Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis and chronic peritoneal dialysis
prescription. In: Daugirdas JT, Blake PG, Ing TS, editors. Handbook of dialysis.
4th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 387–409.
 Peritoneal Dialysis in Veterinary Medicine 113

42. Paniagua R, Amato D, Vonesh E, et al. Effects of increased peritoneal clearances

on mortality rates in peritoneal dialysis: ADEMEX, a prospective, randomized,
controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13:1307–20.
43. Goldberg R, Yalavarthy R, Teitelbaum I. Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis: beyond
small solute clearance. Contrib Nephrol 2009;163:147–54.
44. Golper TA, Churchill D, Blake P, et al. NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for
peritoneal dialysis adequacy: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37(1):S9–64.
45. Heimbürger O. How should we measure peritoneal dialysis adequacy in the
clinic. Contrib Nephrol 2009;163:140–6.
46. Crisp MS, Chew DJ, DiBartola SP, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in dogs and cats: 27
cases (1976–1987). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989;195(9):1262–6.
47. Dorfelt R. Peritoneal dialysis in a dog. Kleinterpraxis 2007;52(3):151–61.
48. Fox LE, Grauer GF, Dubielzig RR, et al. Reversal of ethylene glycol-induced
nephrotoxicosis in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987;191:1433.
49. Jackson RF. The use of peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of uremia in dogs. Vet
Rec 1964;76:1481.
50. Kirk RW. Peritoneal lavage in uremia in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1957;131:101.
51. Thornhill JA, Ash SR, Dhein CR, et al. Peritoneal dialysis with the Purdue column
disc catheter. Minn Vet 1980;20:27.
52. Adin CA, Cowgill LD. Treatment and outcome of dogs with leptospirosis: 36 cases
(1990-1998). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216(3):371–5.
53. Avellini G, Fruganti G, Morettini B, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of
canine leptospirosis. Atti Soc Italiana Sci Vet 1973;27:341–77.