+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Practical Considerations When Prescribing Icodextrin: A Narrative Review


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: Icodextrin is a peritoneal dialysis solution that is commonly used to increase ultrafiltration during the long dwell. The other major clinical benefit of icodextrin is that it is glucose-sparing, which may help preserve peritoneal membrane function. Since it has a different chemical composition than dextrose, and with its increasing use, there are several clinical considerations healthcare providers must familiarize themselves with prior to prescribing icodextrin. Summary: Failure to recognize these special properties of icodextrin can lead to adverse events reaching patients. This narrative review explores the hemodynamic, metabolic, and idiopathic effects of icodextrin to facilitate the safe use of icodextrin in peritoneal dialysis. Key Messages: Hemodynamic effects include hypotension from enhanced ultrafiltration contributing to loss of residual kidney function. Metabolic effects include the chemical structure of icodextrin interfering with biochemical assays, resulting in misleading glucose readings on non-specific glucometers. Idiopathic adverse effects include a diffuse rash and sterile peritonitis. It is also important to remember that not all antibiotic combinations have undergone stability testing in icodextrin. This narrative review will help healthcare providers to confidently prescribe icodextrin to maximize its benefit in peritoneal dialysis patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Glucose meters: a review of technical challenges to obtaining accurate results.

          Glucose meters are universally utilized in the management of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic disorders in a variety of healthcare settings. Establishing the accuracy of glucose meters, however, is challenging. Glucose meters can only analyze whole blood, and glucose is unstable in whole blood. Technical accuracy is defined as the closeness of agreement between a test result and the true value of that analyte. Truth for glucose is analysis by isotope dilution mass spectrometry, and frozen serum standards analyzed by this method are available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Truth for whole blood has not been established, and cells must be separated from the whole blood matrix before analysis by a method like isotope dilution mass spectrometry. Serum cannot be analyzed by glucose meters, and isotope dilution mass spectrometry is not commonly available in most hospitals and diabetes clinics to evaluate glucose meter accuracy. Consensus standards recommend comparing whole blood analysis on a glucose meter against plasma/serum centrifuged from a capillary specimen and analyzed by a clinical laboratory comparative method. Yet capillary samples may not provide sufficient volume to test by both methods, and venous samples may be used as an alternative when differences between venous and capillary blood are considered. There are thus multiple complexities involved in defining technical accuracy and no clear consensus among standards agencies and professional societies on accuracy criteria. Clinicians, however, are more concerned with clinical agreement of the glucose meter with a serum/plasma laboratory result. Acceptance criteria for clinical agreement vary across the range of glucose concentrations and depend on how the result will be used in screening or management of the patient. A variety of factors can affect glucose meter results, including operator technique, environmental exposure, and patient factors, such as medication, oxygen therapy, anemia, hypotension, and other disease states. This article reviews the challenges involved in obtaining accurate glucose meter results. Copyright 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of icodextrin on volume status, blood pressure and echocardiographic parameters: a randomized study.

            Overhydration is a risk factor for hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in peritoneal dialysis patients. Recently, a high prevalence of subclinical overhydration was observed in peritoneal dialysis patients. Aim of the present open-label randomized study was to assess the effect of a icodextrin 7.5% solution on fluid status [extracellular water (ECW) bromide dilution], blood pressure regulation (24-hour ambulatory measurements) and echocardiographic parameters during a study period of 4 months, and to relate the effect to peritoneal membrane characteristics (dialysate/plasma creatinine ratio). Forty peritoneal dialysis patients (22 treated with icodextrin, 18 controls) were randomized to either treatment with icodextrin during the long dwell or standard glucose solutions. Thirty-two patients (19 treated with icodextrin, 13 controls] completed the study. The use of icodextrin resulted in a significant increase in daily ultrafiltration volume (744 +/- 767 mL vs. 1670 +/- 1038 mL; P = 0.012) and a decrease in ECW (17.5 +/- 5.2 L vs. 15.8 +/- 3.8 L; P = 0.035). Also the change in ECW between controls and patients treated with icodextrin was significant (-1.7 +/- 3.3 L vs. +0.9 +/- 2.2 L; P = 0.013). The effect of icodextrin on ECW was not related to peritoneal membrane characteristics, but significantly related to the fluid state of the patients (ECW:height) (r = -0.72; P < 0.0001). Left ventricular mass (LVM) decreased significantly in the icodextrin-treated group (241 +/- 53 grams vs. 228 +/- 42 grams; P = 0.03), but not in the control group. In this randomized open-label study, the use of icodextrin resulted in a significant reduction in ECW and LVM. The effect of icodextrin on ECW was not related to peritoneal membrane characteristics, but was related to the initial fluid state of the patient.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Superiority of icodextrin compared with 4.25% dextrose for peritoneal ultrafiltration.

              Several clinical observations suggest the superiority of icodextrin compared with 4.25% dextrose in optimizing peritoneal ultrafiltration (UF), but no rigorous controlled evaluation has hitherto been performed. For comparing icodextrin and 4.25% dextrose during the long dwell of automated peritoneal dialysis, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted in 92 patients (control, 45; icodextrin, 47) with 4-h dialysate to plasma ratio creatinine >0.70 and D/D(0) glucose <0.34. Long-dwell net UF and the UF efficiency ratio (net UF volume per gram of dialysate carbohydrate absorbed) were determined at baseline, week 1, and week 2. The control and treatment groups were comparable at baseline (all patients using 4.25% dextrose for the long dwell) with regard to mean (+/-SEM) net UF (201.7 +/- 103.1 versus 141.6 +/- 75.4 ml, respectively; P = 0.637) and the percentage of patients with negative net UF (control, 37.8%; treatment, 42.6%; P = 0.641). During the study period, net UF was unchanged from baseline in the control group but increased significantly (P < 0.001) in the icodextrin group from 141.6 +/- 75.4 to 505.8 +/- 46.8 ml at week 1 and 540.2 +/- 46.8 ml at week 2. In the icodextrin group, the incidence of negative net UF was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in the control group. Findings were similar for UF efficiency ratio. Rash was reported significantly more often in the icodextrin group. This study showed that in high-average and high transporters, icodextrin is superior to 4.25% dextrose for long-dwell fluid and solute removal.

                Author and article information

                Am J Nephrol
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                July 2014
                11 June 2014
                : 39
                : 6
                : 515-527
                Division of Nephrology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada
                Author notes
                *Dr. Samuel Silver, Division of Nephrology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 3-060 Shuter Wing, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8 (Canada), E-Mail sam.silver@utoronto.ca
                363417 Am J Nephrol 2014;39:515-527
                © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 13
                In-Depth Topic Review

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Maltose,Hypoglycemia,Peritoneal dialysis,Adverse reactions,Patient safety,Icodextrin


                Comment on this article