PDI 2009 ISDP LAC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Perit Dial Int 23(4): 320-322 2003
© 2003 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rao, P
Right arrow Articles by Oreopoulos, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rao, P
Right arrow Articles by Oreopoulos, D.
Peritoneal Dialysis International, Vol 23, Issue 4, 320-322
Copyright © 2003 by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis


Editorials

Peritoneal dialysis in acute renal failure

P Rao, P Passadakis, and DG Oreopoulos

Given the discussion so far, it might be apparent that factors beyond efficacy have dictated the decline in the use of PD for ARF. The importance of these factors should not be underestimated. They might be related to the perceived "labor intensive" aspect of PD, fear of a malfunctioning catheter (which in some instances may be real), insufficient exposure to PD during nephrology training, and, last, the comfort offered by the technology used for HD. Such psychological barriers are difficult to overcome, much more so than technical barriers (which can be and have been overcome). Only a concentrated effort by the PD community in educating the general nephrologist concerning the feasibility of PD in ARF, better clinical trials that harness the full potential of PD, and careful patient selection for the use of PD will bring PD back to the mainstream in the treatment of ARF.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 2003 by Multimed Inc.