Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) versus hospital or home haemodialysis for end-stage renal disease in adults

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) versus hospital or home haemodialysis for end-stage renal disease in adults

BACKGROUND

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) with dialysis and transplantation is the only means of sustaining life for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although transplantation is the treatment of choice, the number of donor kidneys are limited and transplants may fail. Hence many patients require long-term or even life-long dialysis. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is an alternative to hospital or home haemodialysis for patients with ESRD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of CAPD versus hospital or home haemodialysis for adults with ESRD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, MEDLINE (1966 - May 2002), EMBASE (1980 - May 2002), BIOSIS, CINAHL, SIGLE and NRR without language restriction. Reference lists of retrieved articles and conference proceedings were searched and known investigators and biomedical companies were contacted. Date of most recent search January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing CAPD to hospital or home haemodialysis for adults with ESRD were to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assess the methodological quality of studies. Data was abstracted from included studies onto a standard form by one reviewer and checked by another. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

One trial, reported in abstract form only, was located in the most recent search. There was no statistical difference in death or quality adjusted life years score at 2 years between peritoneal dialysis or haemodialysis patients.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is Insufficient data to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative effectiveness of CAPD compared with hospital or home haemodialysis for adults with ESRD. Efforts should be made to start and complete adequately powered RCTs, which compare the different dialysis modalities.

Icodextrin: a review of its use in peritoneal dialysis

Icodextrin (Extraneal) is a high molecular weight glucose polymer developed specifically for use as an alternative osmotic agent to dextrose during the once-daily long-dwell exchange in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Isosmotic 7.5% icodextrin solution induces transcapillary ultrafiltration (UF) by a mechanism resembling 'colloid' osmosis (unlike hyper-osmolar dextrose-based solutions, which induce UF by crystalline osmosis). In addition, absorption of icodextrin from the peritoneal cavity is relatively slow compared with that of dextrose; this results not only in UF of longer duration, but also a lower carbohydrate load compared with medium (2.5%) and strong (4.25%) dextrose exchanges. In randomised clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration, administration of icodextrin for the long (8- to 16-hour) overnight exchange in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or daytime exchange in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) produced net UF which exceeded that with 1.5% and 2.5% dextrose solutions (thereby improving fluid balance), and was equivalent to that with 4.25% dextrose solution. Icodextrin also increased peritoneal clearances of creatinine and urea nitrogen compared with 2.5% dextrose solution. The increase in UF volume with icodextrin was enhanced in CAPD patients with high peritoneal membrane permeability (i.e. high and high-average transporters), maintained in the small number of patients followed-up for 2 years and sustained during episodes of peritonitis. Icodextrin reduced the percentage of patients with net negative UF in contrast to 1.5% and 2.5% dextrose and, in noncomparative studies, extended PD technique survival in patients who had failed dextrose-based dialysis. The use of icodextrin was also associated with some symptomatic improvements and health-related quality of life advantages, and no adverse effect on patient survival, compared with dextrose, although confirmation of these findings is ideally required in appropriately designed studies. The tolerability of icodextrin was generally similar to that of dextrose-based solutions in controlled clinical trials, although there was an approximate three-fold increase in the risk of new skin rash (5.5% vs 1.7%). However, reports of severe cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions remain rare; this possibility should not preclude the use of the polymer.

CONCLUSION

7.5% icodextrin solution offers the first feasible alternative to conventional dextrose solutions for the once-daily long-dwell exchange in PD. It is effective, generally well tolerated and appears to be most useful in situations of reduced or inadequate UF with dextrose, including in high and high-average transporters, during episodes of peritonitis and patients who have failed dextrose-based dialysis.