{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040690505548705305, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02178380600082203, 'mean_word_length': 4.781472684085511, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
High peritoneal residual volume decreases the efficiency of peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND
Wide variation in peritoneal residual volume (PRV) is a common clinical observation. High PRV has been used in both continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and automated peritoneal dialysis to minimize the time of a dry peritoneal cavity and to achieve better dialysis. However, the impact of PRV on peritoneal transport is not well established. In this study, we investigated the effect of PRV on peritoneal transport characteristics.


METHODS
Peritoneal effluents were collected in 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats after a five-hour dwell with 1.36% glucose solution. Forty-eight hours later, a four hour dwell using 25 ml of 3.86% glucose solution and frequent dialysate and blood sampling was done in each rat with 125I-albumin as a volume marker. Before the infusion of the 3.86% glucose solution, 0 (control), 3, 6, or 12 ml (8 rats in each group) of autologous effluent (serving as PRV) was infused to the peritoneal cavity.


RESULTS
After subtracting the PRV, the net ultrafiltration was significantly lower in the PRV groups as compared with the control group: 13.4 +/- 0.5, 12.0 +/- 1.0, 11.7 +/- 1.7, and 8.9 +/- 0.4 ml for 0, 3, 6, and 12 ml PRV groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The lower net ultrafiltration associated with higher PRV was due to (a) a significantly lower transcapillary ultrafiltration rate (Qu) caused by a lower osmotic gradient, and (b) a significantly higher peritoneal fluid absorption rate (KE) caused by an increased intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. No significant differences were found in the diffusive mass transport coefficient for small solutes (glucose, urea, sodium, and potassium) and total protein, although the dialysate over plasma concentration ratios values were higher in the high-PRV groups. The sodium removal was significantly lower in the PRV groups as compared with the control group (P < 0.01).


CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that a high PRV may decrease net ultrafiltration through decreasing the Qu, which is caused by a decreased dialysate osmolality, and increasing the KE caused by an increased intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. The high volume of PRV also decreased the solute diffusion gradient and decreased peritoneal small solute clearances, particularly for sodium. Therefore, a high PRV may compromise the efficiency of dialysis with a glucose solution.