Extract

In this pro-con debate, we will analyse the relevance of data supporting the prime role of uraemic toxins versus salt and volume overload as the main driver for the impressive mortality and morbidity characteristic of any end-stage renal disease patient.

Firstly, we are going to review the circumstantial evidence and associated studies/clinical observational data which only weakly suggest that uraemic solutes are indeed linked to damage to the body and its constituents, especially the cardiovascular (CV) system. At the same time, we will equally thoroughly discuss the ‘fact’ that decreasing salt and fluid load is essential for any dialysed patient. Evidence in favour of a prominent role for uraemic toxins is appealing from a pathophysiological point of view, but unfortunately is misleading in real life practice. Evidence in favour of salt and water reduction is overwhelmingly stronger.

This difference in apparent evidence strength notwithstanding the weaker support for uraemic toxins does not take away from clinical importance of minimizing uraemic toxicity load in the large majority of the dialysis population.

You do not currently have access to this article.

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.