4.6 Review

Obese and diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease: Peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.016

关键词

End-stage renal disease; Hemodialysis; Obesity; Peritoneal dialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obesity is a chronic disease that is increasingly prevalent around the world and is a well-recognized risk factor for type 2 diabetes and hypertension, leading causes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The obese diabetic patient with ESRD is a challenge for the nephrologist with regard to the type of renal replacement therapy that should be suggested and offered to the patient. There is no evidence that either peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis is contraindicated in obese ESRD patients. In the literature, we can find a discrepancy in the impact of obesity on mortality among hemodialysis vs. peritoneal dialysis patients. Several studies in hemodialysis patients suggest that a higher BMI confers a survival advantage - the so-called reverse epidemiology. In contrast, the literature among obese peritoneal dialysis patients is inconsistent, with various studies reporting an increased risk of death, no difference, or a decreased risk of death. Many of these studies only spanned across a few years, and this is probably too short of a time frame for a realistic assessment of obesity's impact on mortality in ESRD patients. The decision for dialysis modality in an obese diabetic patient with ESRD should be individualized. According to the results of published studies, we cannot suggest PD or HD as a better solution for all obese diabetic patients. The obese patient should be educated about all their dialysis options, including home dialysis therapies. In this review, the available literature related to the dialysis modality in obese patients with diabetes and ESRD was reviewed. (C) 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据