MARATTO

article · World Nutrition

Nutritional evaluation in relation to adequacy of peritoneal dialysis

2025Open accessMohammed V University

Abstract

BackgroundDialysis adequacy and nutritional status are pivotal for the prognosis of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD).ObjectiveThis study investigated the predictive factors of dialysis adequacy, with a special focus on the normalized protein catabolic rate (nPCR), a promising marker of protein intake and nutritional status.MethodsThis is a retrospective, descriptive and analytical study carried out between June 2006 and January 2024; it included 151 patients on PD. Patients were categorized into two groups based on total Kt/V: Group A (inadequate dialysis: Kt/V < 1.7) and Group B (adequate dialysis: Kt/V ≥ 1.7). Nutritional and biochemical markers were analyzed, including body mass index (BMI), albumin, hemoglobin, ferritin, triglycerides, and nPCR. Statistical comparisons used t-test, Welch’s test, ANOVA, chi-square, or binomial tests; P < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsDialysis adequacy was significantly associated with higher residual kidney function (RKF), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and nPCR levels, while it was negatively correlated with serum creatinine, urea, uric acid, and BMI. An nPCR < 0.8 g/kg/day and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² were identified as independent predictors of inadequate dialysis. Polycystic kidney disease was also associated with dialysis inadequacy.ConclusionsInadequate dialysis was significantly associated with poor nutritional indicators, particularly low nPCR and overweight. nPCR appeared to be a reliable marker for predicting dialysis adequacy. A multidimensional strategy emphasizing nutritional monitoring,

Research topics

  • Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
  • Parathyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.26596/wn.202516477-84

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.