Different outcomes of peritoneal catheter percutaneous placement by nephrologists using a trocar versus the Seldinger technique: the experience of two Brazilian centers

The Importance of the Nephrologist in the Treatment of the Diuretic-Resistant Heart Failure

Heart failure is not only a global problem but also significantly limits the life prospects of these patients. The epidemiology and presentation of heart failure are intensively researched topics in cardiology. The risk factors leading to heart failure are well known; however, the real challenge is to provide effective treatments. A vicious cycle develops in heart failure of all etiologies, sooner or later compromising both cardiac and kidney functions simultaneously. This can explain the repeated hospital admissions due to decompensation and the significantly reduced quality of life. Moreover, diuretic-refractory heart failure represents a distinct challenge due to repeated hospital admissions and increased mortality. In our narrative review, we wanted to draw attention to nephrology treatment options for severe diuretic-resistant heart failure. The incremental value of peritoneal dialysis in severe heart failure and the feasibility of percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion have been well known for many years. In contrast, the science and narrative of acute peritoneal dialysis in diuretic-resistant heart failure remains underrepresented. We believe that nephrologists are uniquely positioned to help these patients by providing acute peritoneal dialysis to reduce hospitalization dependency and increase their quality of life.

Peritoneal catheter insertion: combating barriers through policy change

Barriers to accessing home dialysis became a matter of life and death for many patients with kidney failure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the more commonly used home therapy option. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of PD catheter insertion procedures as performed around the world today, barriers impacting timely access to the procedure, the impact of COVID-19 and a roadmap of potential policy solutions. To substantiate the analysis, the article includes a survey of institutions across the world, with questions designed to get a sense of the regulatory frameworks, barriers to conducting the procedure and impacts of the pandemic on capability and outcomes. Based on our research, we found that improving patient selection processes, determining and implementing correct insertion techniques, creating multidisciplinary teams, providing appropriate training and sharing decision making among stakeholders will improve access to PD catheter insertion and facilitate greater uptake of home dialysis. Additionally, on a policy level, we recommend efforts to improve the awareness and feasibility of PD among patients and the healthcare workforce, enhance and promulgate training for clinicians—both surgical and medical—to insert PD catheters and fund personnel, pathways and physical facilities for PD catheter insertion.

Comparison of planned-start, early-start and deferred-start strategies for peritoneal dialysis initiation in end-stage kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) suitable for peritoneal dialysis (PD), PD should ideally be planned and initiated electively (planned-start PD). If patients present late, some centres initiate PD immediately with an urgent-start PD strategy. However, as urgent-start PD is resource intensive, we evaluated another strategy where patients first undergo emergent haemodialysis (HD), followed by early PD catheter insertion, and switch to PD 48-72 hours after PD catheter insertion (early-start PD). Conventionally, late-presenting patients are often started on HD, followed by deferred PD catheter insertion before switching to PD≥14 days after catheter insertion (deferred start PD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of new ESKD patients, comparing the planned-start, early-start and deferred-start PD strategies. Outcomes within 1 year of dialysis initiation were studied.

RESULTS

Of 148 patients, 57 (38.5%) patients had planned-start, 23 (15.5%) early-start and 68 (45.9%) deferred-start PD. Baseline biochemical parameters were similar except for a lower serum urea with planned-start PD. No significant differences were seen in the primary outcomes of technique and patient survival across all 3 subgroups. Compared to planned-start PD, early-start PD had a shorter time to catheter migration (hazard ratio [HR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-121.04, P=0.016) while deferred-start PD has a shorter time to first peritonitis (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.03-6.01, P=0.043) and first hospital admission (HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.35-3.07, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Planned-start PD is the best PD initiation strategy. However, if this is not possible, early-start PD is a viable alternative. Catheter migration may be more frequent with early-start PD but does not appear to impact technique survival.

Comparison of Outcomes between Percutaneous and Surgical Placement of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters in Uremic Patients: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for inserting peritoneal dialysis catheters in uremic patients remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the current evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of percutaneous insertion methods compared to surgical methods.

METHOD

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. The primary outcome was defined as catheter survival. The secondary outcomes were mechanical and infectious complications related to catheter insertion.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were finally identified, including 2 randomized controlled trials. The pooled results of catheter survival, overall mechanical complications, and infectious complications were not significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.76-1.57, p = 0.62; OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.48-1.11, p = 0.14; and OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.37-1.09, p = 0.14, respectively). Comparison stratified by the blind percutaneous method versus open surgery indicated a lower overall number of mechanical complications (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.31-0.93, I2 = 72%) and malposition rate (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.34-0.90, I2 = 0%). The leakage rate was higher in the blind percutaneous group than in the open surgery group (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.72-3.79, I2 = 0%); the guided percutaneous method achieved a similar leakage risk to the surgical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The blind percutaneous method performed better with fewer overall mechanical complications and less malposition than open surgery. The leakage risk was higher in the blind percutaneous group, while the guided percutaneous placement group showed similar outcomes to the surgical method groups. Percutaneous methods also had a lower infection risk, which needs further evidence to be confirmed.

Urgent-start dialysis: Comparison of complications and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the viability and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start renal replacement therapy (RRT). This study aimed to compare infectious and mechanical complications related to urgent-start PD and HD. Secondary outcomes were to identify risk factors for complications and mortality related to urgent-start dialysis.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study with incident patients receiving PD and HD in a Brazilian university hospital, between July 2014 and December 2017. Subjects included individuals with final-stage chronic kidney disease who required immediate RRT, that is, HD through central venous catheter or PD in which the catheter was implanted by a nephrologist and utilized for 72 h, without previous training. Patients with PD were subjected, initially, to high-volume PD for metabolic compensation. After hospital discharge, they remained in intermittent PD in the dialysis unit until training was completed. Mechanical and infectious complications were compared, as well as the recovery of renal function and survival.

RESULTS

In total, 93 patients were included in PD and 91 in HD. PD and HD groups were similar regarding age (58 ± 17 vs. 60 ± 15 years; p = 0.49), frequency of diabetes mellitus (37.6% vs. 50.5%; p = 0.10), other comorbidities (74.1% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.67) and biochemical parameters at the beginning of RRT, that is, creatinine (9.1 ± 4.1 vs. 8.0 ± 2.8; p = 0.09), serum albumin (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = 0.06) and haemoglobin (9.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 2.0; p = 0.44). After a minimum follow-up period of 180 days and a maximum follow-up period of 2 years, there was no difference regarding mechanical complications (24.7% vs. 37.4%; p = 0.06) or bacteraemia (15.0% vs. 24.0%; p = 0.11); however, there was a difference regarding infection of the exit site (25.8% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.04) and diuresis maintenance [700 (0-1500) vs. 0 (0-500); p < 0.001], with better results in the PD group. There was better phosphorus control at 180 days in the PD group (62.4% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.008), with a lower requirement for phosphate binder usage (28% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), erythropoietin (18.3% vs. 49.5%; p < 0.001) and anti-hypertensives (11.8% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.003). Time to death was similar between groups. In the multivariate analysis, PD was a predictor of renal function recovery [odds ratio: 3.95 (1.01-15.4)].

CONCLUSION

PD is a viable and safe alternative to HD in a scenario of urgent-start RRT with complication rates and outcomes similar to those of HD, highlighting the results regarding renal function recovery.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although historically peritoneal dialysis was widely used in nephrology, it has been underutilized in recent years. In this review, we present several key opportunities and strategies for revitalization of urgent start peritoneal dialysis use, and discuss the recent literature on clinical experience with peritoneal dialysis use in the acute and unplanned setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interest in using urgent start peritoneal dialysis to manage acute kidney injury (AKI) and unplanned chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 patients has been increasing. To overcome some of the classic limitations of peritoneal dialysis use in AKI, such as a high chance of infectious and mechanical complications, and no control of urea, the use of cycles, flexible catheters, and a high volume of dialysis fluid has been proposed. This knowledge can be used in the case of an unplanned start on chronic peritoneal dialysis, and may be a tool to increase the peritoneal dialysis penetration rate among incident patients starting chronic dialysis therapy.

SUMMARY

Peritoneal dialysis should be offered in an unbiased way to all patients starting unplanned dialysis, and without contraindications to peritoneal dialysis. It may be a feasible, well tolerated, and complementary alternative to hemodialysis, not only in the chronic setting, but also in the acute.

Wang's Forceps-Assisted Percutaneous Insertion and Fixation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters is theoretically most preferred by nephrologists because of the advantages of bedside performing, surgery independence, and minimal injury over other procedures of catheter placement such as open surgical dissection or laparoscopic operation. However, blindly placing catheters in the percutaneous procedure brings the risk of catheter malposition or bowel perforation; this largely retarded it's implementation. We had previously developed a novel technique termed "Wang's forceps-assisted catheter insertion and fixation," which had been successfully applied in the open surgical catheter insertion and displaced catheter reposition in our center. In this study, we further explored the possibility of applying the Wang's forceps in the procedure of percutaneous catheter insertion both in porcine model and patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of three miniature pigs successfully received percutaneous catheter insertion using Seldinger's technique with Wang's forceps assistance. The catheters were all placed in the right position and functioning well in dialysate drainage. This novel method of percutaneous catheter insertion was then performed on 20 ESRD patients. The procedure showed effective time-saving with the average operating time of 29.2 ± 3.53 min and was well tolerated by patients with minimal pain and injury. During a follow-up time of 6 months, no complications of catheter displacement, leakage, or blockade occurred. Our preliminary observation demonstrates that utilization of Wang's forceps in a percutaneous procedure conferred benefits of accurately placing and fixing catheters while preserving the merits of minimal invasion and simple performance.

Acute PD: Evidence, Guidelines, and Controversies☆

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) may be a feasible, safe, and complementary alternative to hemodialysis not only in the chronic setting, but also in the acute setting. It previously was widely accepted for acute kidney injury (AKI) treatment, but its practice decreased in favor of other types of extracorporeal therapies. The interest in PD to manage AKI patients has been reignited and PD now frequently is used in developing countries because of its lower cost and minimal infrastructural requirements. Studies from these countries have shown that, with careful thought and planning, critically ill patients can be treated successfully using PD. Some of the classic limitations of PD use in AKI, such as a high chance of infectious and mechanical complications and poor metabolic control, have been overcome with the use of cyclers, flexible catheters, and a high volume of dialysis fluid. However, in developing countries the infrastructure for quality research often is lacking and the result has been limited evidence on standardized treatment regimens such as indications, dosing, and technical failure and mortality. The recent publication of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guidelines for PD in AKI have tried to address these issues and provide an evidence-based standard by which to initiate therapy. In this article, advances in technical aspects and the advantages and limitations of PD are discussed, and recent literature on clinical experience with PD for the treatment of AKI patients is reviewed.

Peritoneal Dialysis Treatment Modality Option in Acute Kidney Injury

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) may be a feasible and safe alternative to haemodialysis not only in the chronic but also in the acute setting. It was previously widely accepted as a modality for acute kidney injury (AKI) treatment, but its practice declined in favor of other types of extracorporeal therapies.

SUMMARY

The interest in PD to manage AKI patients has been increased and PD is now frequently used in developing countries because of its lower cost and minimal infrastructural requirements. Studies from these countries have shown that, with careful thought and planning, critically ill patients can be successfully treated using PD. Some of the classic limitations of PD use in AKI, such as infectious and mechanical complications and poor metabolic control, have been decreased with the use of cyclers, flexible catheters, and a high volume of dialysate. The recent publication of the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis guidelines for PD in AKI has tried to address these issues and provide an evidence-based standard by which to initiate therapy. Key Message: In this review, advances in technical aspects and the advantages and limitations of PD were discussed; it clearly showed that PD is a simple, safe, and efficient way to correct metabolic, electrolyte, acid - base, and volume disturbances generated by AKI and it can be used as a renal replacement therapy modality to treat AKI, both in and out of the intensive care unit setting.

Acute kidney injury: risk factors and management challenges in developing countries

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major global health problem in both developed and developing nations, negatively affecting patient morbidity and responsible for an estimated 1.4 million deaths per year. Although the International Society of Nephrology set a goal of eliminating preventable deaths from AKI by 2025, implementation of this program in developing countries presents major challenges not only because of the lack of resources but also because of the scarce data addressing the epidemiology and causes of AKI in developing countries, the limited health care resources to diagnose and treat AKI, and the poor awareness of the impact of AKI on patient outcomes.