Peritoneal Dialysis ComplicationPhase 4TPDNCT04302649
Dialysate Temperature in Peritoneal Dialysis
A Phase 4 study testing peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperature in people with Peritoneal Dialysis Complication, run by Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
Patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (PD) are encouraged to warm dialysate to 37°C before peritoneal infusion; main international PD guidelines do not provide specific recommendation, and patients generally warm dialysate batches partially or do not warm them at all. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Peritoneal Dialysis Complication
- What is being tested?
- peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperature
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 18 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2018to 31 Dec 2018
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- age > 18 years
- ability to give informed consent
- peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatment
- PD vintage of more than 3 months
- absence of signs of active acute systemic or localized infections at least four weeks apart from the trial
Who cannot join
- pregnancy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Italy1 site
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Modena
Modena, Emilia-Romagna, 41124
About this study
Official title: Influence of Dialysate Temperature on Peritoneal Creatinine Clearance in Patients in Peritoneal Dialysis
Patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (PD) are encouraged to warm dialysate to 37°C before peritoneal infusion; main international PD guidelines do not provide specific recommendation, and patients generally warm dialysate batches partially or do not warm them at all. Warming of dialysate is a time-consuming procedure, not free from potential risks (i.e. degradation of glucose), and should be justified by a clear clinical benefit. The investigators designed a single blind randomized controlled trial where PD patients were randomized to receive a peritoneal equilibration test either with dialysate at a controlled temperature of 37°C (intervention group) or with dialysate warmed with conventional methods (control group). Primary end-point was a higher peritoneal creatinine clearance in patients in the intervention group.
Read the detailed description
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) currently represents the main choice for home renal replacement treatment for patients with end stage renal disease. One of the limitations of PD technique is represented by the difficulty in achieving target dialytic clearances and PD adequacy for some patients, especially with increasing PD vintage. A potentially relevant issue in PD clearances is the effect of dialysate temperature on depuration. Indeed, it is common for clinicians to advise patients in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) to warm the dialysate before infusion into the peritoneal cavity, with different methods (microwave oven, warming cabin, warming pad). Nevertheless, main international PD guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on this topic. Only guidelines from the British Columbia Renal Agency (Canada) dedicate a specific chapter to the temperature of dialysate, recommending its warming to 37°C before peritoneal infusion, mainly in order to avoid an "uncomfortable lowering of body temperature". On the other hand, warming of PD batches could lead to hot spots formation inside the batch, especially with microwaves, and to degradation of glucose leading to the formation of toxic glucose degradation products (GDPs). Also, notable differences in room temperature exist according to geographical latitude and year season, and there are no clear and detailed reports in the literature regarding intolerable effects of the infusion of dialysate at room temperature. It must be acknowledged that it is common practice for patients to warm dialysate batches only partially or not to warm them at all. Moreover, warming pads that are most commonly used by CAPD patients do not effectively warm the dialysate up to 37°C. In the Peritoneal Dialysis Unit at Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, it was recently observed that average dialysate temperature at infusion was 31.1°C, even if the pad was calibrated to 37°C [unpublished data]. With respect to the effects on toxins clearances through the peritoneal membrane, a higher dialysate temperature could theoretically favor vasodilation of peritoneal membrane microcirculation, potentially increasing the passage of substances. Severe microcirculatory dysfunction has been reported in PD patients and any intervention designed to ameliorate microcirculatory flow at peritoneal level could be beneficial. Surprisingly, reports regarding the effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances in PD in humans are surprisingly scarce. In 1967 Gross et al reported an increase in the exchange of substances between peritoneal fluid and blood upon warming of the PD fluid to 37°C (compared to 20°C) in a patient treated with intermittent peritoneal dialysis; the increase in urea clearance with the 37°C solution was 35% on average. In contrast, Indraprasit et al did not encounter differences in peritoneal creatinine clearance utilizing dialysate at room temperature (27-31°C) and warmed at 37°C in a group of 18 patients in PD. Confirmation of the effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances would be of great interest in order to maximize the depurative potential of PD and to justify patients' effort to warm the batches.
In order to determine the real effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances and transport characteristics, abdominal discomfort and vital signs, the investigators designed a randomized controlled trial comparing two strategies of peritoneal dialysate warming.
Study design and participants PD patients, both in CAPD and automated PD, in regular follow-up at the Nephrology Unit of the University Hospital of Modena, were randomized to receive a single dialysis exchange, either with dialysate at a controlled temperature of 37°C (intervention group) or with dialysate at warmed with conventional methods at uncontrolled temperature (control group). Randomization was generated through the use of the Random Allocation software11.
Primary end-point of our study was peritoneal creatinine clearance. Secondary end-points were: peritoneal urea clearance, creatinine and urea mass transfer area coefficient (MTAC), abdominal discomfort, blood pressure and body temperature.
A power analysis was performed while designing the study using the few data available in the literature; setting the alpha-error level at 0.05 for a 2-tailed t-test with a statistical power of 95% (beta-error 0.05) the estimated sample needed was 14 patients (7 per group).
- Conditions
- Peritoneal Dialysis Complication
- Being tested
- peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperature
- Keywords
- peritoneal dialysis, dialysate temperature, peritoneal creatinine clearance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperatureDrug
during a PET test, patients received peritoneal dialysate warmed at 37°C before infusion
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Patients received Peritoneal Equilibration Test (PET). In the intervention group, dialysate was warmed in a specific microwave oven calibrated to 37°C and infusion temperature was confirmed to be 37°C before infusion Receives: Drug: peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperature |
| Control group | No intervention | Patients received Peritoneal Equilibration Test (PET). In the control group, current practice was used (batch warming with a pad calibrated to 37°C) and dialysate temperature was measured just before infusion. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
peritoneal creatinine clearance
Peritoneal clearance of creatinine was calculated with the following formula:
Cx = [Dx] x dialysate volume / [Px] / 240 where Cx represents clearance of creatinine expressed in ml/min, [Dx] represents the concentration of creatinine in dialysate at the end of the exchange (4 hours) expressed in mg/dl, dialysate volume represents the total volume drained at the end of the exchange (4 hours), [Px] represents the concentration of creatinine in plasma after 2 hours from the beginning of the exchange expressed in mg/dl and 240 represents minutes contained in the 4 hours of the exchange.
Measured: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
Secondary outcomes (2)
peritoneal urea clearance
Peritoneal clearance of urea was calculated with the following formula:
Cx = [Dx] x dialysate volume / [Px] / 240 where Cx represents clearance of urea expressed in ml/min, [Dx] represents the concentration of urea in dialysate at the end of the exchange (4 hours) expressed in mg/dl, dialysate volume represents the total volume drained at the end of the exchange (4 hours), [Px] represents the concentration of urea in plasma after 2 hours from the beginning of the exchange expressed in mg/dl and 240 represents minutes contained in the 4 hours of the exchange.
Measured: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
creatinine and urea mass transfer area coefficient
Mass transfer area coefficients (MTAC) for creatinine and urea were calculated with the RenalSoft software (converted from the PD Adequest software) from Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, U.S.A. Correction for plasmatic water concentration was not added, since the main purpose was to compare MTACs from the intervention and control group and not to obtain absolute data.
Measured: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Mar 2020
- Study start1 Oct 2018
- Primary completion24 Dec 2018
- Study completion31 Dec 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Peritoneal Dialysis ComplicationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gianni Cappelli, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena
- Investigators
- Gianni Cappelli, Professor, Principal investigator, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04302649
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 165/2018/SPER/AOUMO
- Acronym
- TPD
- Status last verified
- Mar 2020
- First submitted
- 6 Mar 2020
- Last updated
- 10 Mar 2020
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Fernandez-Reyes MJ, Bajo MA, Del Peso G, Ossorio M, Diaz R, Carretero B, Selgas R. The influence of initial peritoneal transport characteristics, inflammation, and high glucose exposure on prognosis for peritoneal membrane function. Perit Dial Int. 2012 Nov-Dec;32(6):636-44. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2011.00137. Epub 2012 Apr 2.
PubMed 22473036Bargman JM, Krediet RT, Lo WK, Selgas R, del Peso G, Auxiliadora Bajo M, Mujais S. What are the problems with using the peritoneal membrane for long-term dialysis? Semin Dial. 2008 Jan-Feb;21(1):11-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2007.00385_1.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 18251949Aroeira LS, Aguilera A, Sanchez-Tomero JA, Bajo MA, del Peso G, Jimenez-Heffernan JA, Selgas R, Lopez-Cabrera M. Epithelial to mesenchymal transition and peritoneal membrane failure in peritoneal dialysis patients: pathologic significance and potential therapeutic interventions. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jul;18(7):2004-13. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006111292. Epub 2007 Jun 13.
PubMed 17568021Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimburger O, Krediet R, Plum J, Rodrigues A, Selgas R, Struijk D, Verger C; EBPG Expert Group on Peritoneal Dialysis. European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. 7 Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005 Dec;20 Suppl 9:ix24-ix27. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfi1121. No abstract available.
PubMed 16263748Welten AG, Schalkwijk CG, ter Wee PM, Meijer S, van den Born J, Beelen RJ. Single exposure of mesothelial cells to glucose degradation products (GDPs) yields early advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) and a proinflammatory response. Perit Dial Int. 2003 May-Jun;23(3):213-21.
PubMed 12938820Fontana F, Ballestri M, Makomi C, Morandi R, Cappelli G. Hemorheologic alterations in peritoneal dialysis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;65(2):175-183. doi: 10.3233/CH-16152.
PubMed 27340762Gross M, McDonald HP Jr. Effect of dialysate temperature and flow rate on peritoneal clearance. JAMA. 1967 Oct 23;202(4):363-5. No abstract available.
PubMed 6072310Indraprasit S, Namwongprom A, Sooksriwongse C, Buri PS. Effect of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances. Nephron. 1983;34(1):45-7. doi: 10.1159/000182977.
PubMed 6855994Saghaei M. Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Nov 9;4:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-26.
PubMed 15535880Teixido-Planas J. Peritoneal function and adequacy calculations: current programs versus PD Adequest 2.0. Perit Dial Int. 2002 May-Jun;22(3):386-93.
PubMed 12227398Figueiredo AE, Goodlad C, Clemenger M, Haddoub SS, McGrory J, Pryde K, Tonkins E, Hisole N, Brown EA. Evaluation of physical symptoms in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Int J Nephrol. 2012;2012:305424. doi: 10.1155/2012/305424. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
PubMed 23050149Twardowski ZJ. Clinical value of standardized equilibration tests in CAPD patients. Blood Purif. 1989;7(2-3):95-108. doi: 10.1159/000169582.
PubMed 2663040Fontana F, Torelli C, Giovanella S, Ligabue G, Alfano G, Gerritsen K, Selgas R, Cappelli G. Influence of dialysate temperature on creatinine peritoneal clearance in peritoneal dialysis patients: a randomized trial. BMC Nephrol. 2020 Oct 27;21(1):448. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02113-z.
PubMed 33109094
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Mar 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Influence of Dialysate Temperature on Peritoneal Creatinine Clearance in Patients in Peritoneal Dialysis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04302649
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TPD / 165/2018/SPER/AOUMO
- Conditions
- Peritoneal Dialysis Complication
- Keywords
- peritoneal dialysis, dialysate temperature, peritoneal creatinine clearance
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di ModenaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Mar 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (PD) are encouraged to warm dialysate to 37°C before peritoneal infusion; main international PD guidelines do not provide specific recommendation, and patients generally warm dialysate batches partially or do not warm them at all. Warming of dialysate is a time-consuming procedure, not free from potential risks (i.e. degradation of glucose), and should be justified by a clear clinical benefit. The investigators designed a single blind randomized controlled trial where PD patients were randomized to receive a peritoneal equilibration test either with dialysate at a controlled temperature of 37°C (intervention group) or with dialysate warmed with conventional methods (control group). Primary end-point was a higher peritoneal creatinine clearance in patients in the intervention group.
Detailed description
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) currently represents the main choice for home renal replacement treatment for patients with end stage renal disease. One of the limitations of PD technique is represented by the difficulty in achieving target dialytic clearances and PD adequacy for some patients, especially with increasing PD vintage. A potentially relevant issue in PD clearances is the effect of dialysate temperature on depuration. Indeed, it is common for clinicians to advise patients in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) to warm the dialysate before infusion into the peritoneal cavity, with different methods (microwave oven, warming cabin, warming pad). Nevertheless, main international PD guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on this topic. Only guidelines from the British Columbia Renal Agency (Canada) dedicate a specific chapter to the temperature of dialysate, recommending its warming to 37°C before peritoneal infusion, mainly in order to avoid an "uncomfortable lowering of body temperature". On the other hand, warming of PD batches could lead to hot spots formation inside the batch, especially with microwaves, and to degradation of glucose leading to the formation of toxic glucose degradation products (GDPs). Also, notable differences in room temperature exist according to geographical latitude and year season, and there are no clear and detailed reports in the literature regarding intolerable effects of the infusion of dialysate at room temperature. It must be acknowledged that it is common practice for patients to warm dialysate batches only partially or not to warm them at all. Moreover, warming pads that are most commonly used by CAPD patients do not effectively warm the dialysate up to 37°C. In the Peritoneal Dialysis Unit at Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, it was recently observed that average dialysate temperature at infusion was 31.1°C, even if the pad was calibrated to 37°C [unpublished data]. With respect to the effects on toxins clearances through the peritoneal membrane, a higher dialysate temperature could theoretically favor vasodilation of peritoneal membrane microcirculation, potentially increasing the passage of substances. Severe microcirculatory dysfunction has been reported in PD patients and any intervention designed to ameliorate microcirculatory flow at peritoneal level could be beneficial. Surprisingly, reports regarding the effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances in PD in humans are surprisingly scarce. In 1967 Gross et al reported an increase in the exchange of substances between peritoneal fluid and blood upon warming of the PD fluid to 37°C (compared to 20°C) in a patient treated with intermittent peritoneal dialysis; the increase in urea clearance with the 37°C solution was 35% on average. In contrast, Indraprasit et al did not encounter differences in peritoneal creatinine clearance utilizing dialysate at room temperature (27-31°C) and warmed at 37°C in a group of 18 patients in PD. Confirmation of the effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances would be of great interest in order to maximize the depurative potential of PD and to justify patients' effort to warm the batches.
In order to determine the real effects of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances and transport characteristics, abdominal discomfort and vital signs, the investigators designed a randomized controlled trial comparing two strategies of peritoneal dialysate warming.
Study design and participants PD patients, both in CAPD and automated PD, in regular follow-up at the Nephrology Unit of the University Hospital of Modena, were randomized to receive a single dialysis exchange, either with dialysate at a controlled temperature of 37°C (intervention group) or with dialysate at warmed with conventional methods at uncontrolled temperature (control group). Randomization was generated through the use of the Random Allocation software11.
Primary end-point of our study was peritoneal creatinine clearance. Secondary end-points were: peritoneal urea clearance, creatinine and urea mass transfer area coefficient (MTAC), abdominal discomfort, blood pressure and body temperature.
A power analysis was performed while designing the study using the few data available in the literature; setting the alpha-error level at 0.05 for a 2-tailed t-test with a statistical power of 95% (beta-error 0.05) the estimated sample needed was 14 patients (7 per group).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Drug: peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperaturePatients received Peritoneal Equilibration Test (PET). In the intervention group, dialysate was warmed in a specific microwave oven calibrated to 37°C and infusion temperature was confirmed to be 37°C before infusion |
| Control group | No intervention | –Patients received Peritoneal Equilibration Test (PET). In the control group, current practice was used (batch warming with a pad calibrated to 37°C) and dialysate temperature was measured just before infusion. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- age > 18 years
- ability to give informed consent
- peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatment
- PD vintage of more than 3 months
- absence of signs of active acute systemic or localized infections at least four weeks apart from the trial
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- pregnancy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperatureduring a PET test, patients received peritoneal dialysate warmed at 37°C before infusion | Drug | Intervention group |
Primary outcome
peritoneal creatinine clearance
Time frame: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
Peritoneal clearance of creatinine was calculated with the following formula: Cx = [Dx] x dialysate volume / [Px] / 240 where Cx represents clearance of creatinine expressed in ml/min, [Dx] represents the concentration of creatinine in dialysate at the end of the exchange (4 hours) expressed in mg/dl, dialysate volume represents the total volume drained at the end of the exchange (4 hours), [Px] represents the concentration of creatinine in plasma after 2 hours from the beginning of the exchange expressed in mg/dl and 240 represents minutes contained in the 4 hours of the exchange.
2 secondary outcomes
peritoneal urea clearance
Time frame: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
creatinine and urea mass transfer area coefficient
Time frame: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Mar 2020.
- Background: PubMed 22473036Fernandez-Reyes MJ, Bajo MA, Del Peso G, Ossorio M, Diaz R, Carretero B, Selgas R. The influence of initial peritoneal transport characteristics, inflammation, and high glucose exposure on prognosis for peritoneal membrane function. Perit Dial Int. 2012 Nov-Dec;32(6):636-44. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2011.00137. Epub 2012 Apr 2.
- Background: PubMed 18251949Bargman JM, Krediet RT, Lo WK, Selgas R, del Peso G, Auxiliadora Bajo M, Mujais S. What are the problems with using the peritoneal membrane for long-term dialysis? Semin Dial. 2008 Jan-Feb;21(1):11-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2007.00385_1.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17568021Aroeira LS, Aguilera A, Sanchez-Tomero JA, Bajo MA, del Peso G, Jimenez-Heffernan JA, Selgas R, Lopez-Cabrera M. Epithelial to mesenchymal transition and peritoneal membrane failure in peritoneal dialysis patients: pathologic significance and potential therapeutic interventions. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jul;18(7):2004-13. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006111292. Epub 2007 Jun 13.
- Background: PubMed 16263748Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimburger O, Krediet R, Plum J, Rodrigues A, Selgas R, Struijk D, Verger C; EBPG Expert Group on Peritoneal Dialysis. European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. 7 Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005 Dec;20 Suppl 9:ix24-ix27. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfi1121. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 12938820Welten AG, Schalkwijk CG, ter Wee PM, Meijer S, van den Born J, Beelen RJ. Single exposure of mesothelial cells to glucose degradation products (GDPs) yields early advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) and a proinflammatory response. Perit Dial Int. 2003 May-Jun;23(3):213-21.
- Background: PubMed 27340762Fontana F, Ballestri M, Makomi C, Morandi R, Cappelli G. Hemorheologic alterations in peritoneal dialysis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;65(2):175-183. doi: 10.3233/CH-16152.
- Background: PubMed 6072310Gross M, McDonald HP Jr. Effect of dialysate temperature and flow rate on peritoneal clearance. JAMA. 1967 Oct 23;202(4):363-5. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 6855994Indraprasit S, Namwongprom A, Sooksriwongse C, Buri PS. Effect of dialysate temperature on peritoneal clearances. Nephron. 1983;34(1):45-7. doi: 10.1159/000182977.
- Background: PubMed 15535880Saghaei M. Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Nov 9;4:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-26.
- Background: PubMed 12227398Teixido-Planas J. Peritoneal function and adequacy calculations: current programs versus PD Adequest 2.0. Perit Dial Int. 2002 May-Jun;22(3):386-93.
- Background: PubMed 23050149Figueiredo AE, Goodlad C, Clemenger M, Haddoub SS, McGrory J, Pryde K, Tonkins E, Hisole N, Brown EA. Evaluation of physical symptoms in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Int J Nephrol. 2012;2012:305424. doi: 10.1155/2012/305424. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
- Background: PubMed 2663040Twardowski ZJ. Clinical value of standardized equilibration tests in CAPD patients. Blood Purif. 1989;7(2-3):95-108. doi: 10.1159/000169582.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Peritoneal Dialysis Complication
Not yet recruiting
Guiding Optimal Blood Pressure Management in Peritoneal Dialysis Pilot Trial
End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD), Hypertension (HTN)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Malnutrition and Sarcopenia in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease in Tunisia
Malnutrition, Sarcopenia
RecruitingObservational study
Sensor-based Congestion ALert for Events in Peritoneal Dialysis (SCALE-PD)
Kidney Disease, Peritoneal Dialysis (PD)
RecruitingPhase 2
Empagliflozin on Residual Kidney Function in Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
End Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis, Peritoneal Dialysis Complication
RecruitingObservational study
Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Diabetes on Peritoneal Dialysis
Kidney Disease, Chronic, Peritoneal Dialysis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gianni Cappelli, Professor principal investigator
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing peritoneal dialysate at 37°C temperature in people with Peritoneal Dialysis Complication, run by Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Mar 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
peritoneal creatinine clearance (time frame: 4 hours - Peritoneal equilibration test). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04302649, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Mar 2020.