A comparative analysis of ambulatory BP profile and arterial stiffness between CAPD and APD

Prior studies have associated automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) with less effective volume and blood pressure (BP) control as compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Our study aimed to compare the volume status, ambulatory BP profile and severity of arterial stiffness between patients treated with CAPD versus APD. In a case-control design, 28 CAPD patients were matched in 1:1 ratio with 28 controls receiving APD for age, gender and diabetic status. Body composition was assessed with the method of bioimpendence spectroscopy. Twenty-four hours ambulatory BP monitoring with the Mobil-O-Graph device (IEM, Germany) was performed to determine peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters, heart rate-adjusted augmentation index (AIx75) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). Standardized office BP, antihypertensive medication use and extracellular-to-total body water ratio did not differ between CAPD and APD groups. Twenty-four hours brachial systolic BP (129.0 ± 17.3 vs. 128.1 ± 14.2 mmHg, P = 0.83) and 24-h aortic systolic BP (116.9 ± 16.4 vs. 116.4 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.87) were similar in patients treated with CAPD versus APD. Similarly, there was no significant difference between PD modalities in severity of arterial stiffness, as assessed with 24-h AIx75 (24.8 ± 8.9 vs. 22.5 ± 9.1, P = 0.36) and 24-h PWV (9.1 ± 2.4 vs. 8.8 ± 2.1 m/s, P = 0.61). The present study suggests that there is no difference in peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters as well as in the severity of arterial stiffness between CAPD and APD. However, these observations should be interpreted within the context of clinical characteristics of patients included in this case-control study. The comparative effectiveness of these 2 PD modalities warrants further investigation in larger longitudinal studies.