Urgent Start Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis Leads to Reduction of Catheter-Related Infection and Increased Peritoneal Dialysis Penetration

Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion techniques by the nephrologist

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter is the lifeline of PD patients, and despite the overall strength of the PD program in many countries, PD catheter survival remains the major weakness of the program. The prompt and effective implantation of the PD catheter, as well as speedy management of complications arising from catheter insertion, remains crucial for the success of the program.

Hybrid Method for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: A New Technique for Improved Outcomes and Reduced Costs

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a well-established treatment choice for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). While there are several methods for PD catheter insertion, they each have limitations. In this study, we present a new hybrid method for PD catheter insertion and compare it to the conventional laparoscopic method.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 171 patients who were undergoing their first PD catheter insertion, and a total of 20% of the enrolled patients had a past medical history of abdominal surgery. Out of these, 101 patients underwent the laparoscopic method and 70 underwent a new invented hybrid method. The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, incidence of early and late complications, hospital stay, and medical expenses between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no notable differences in basic demographic features and comorbid conditions between the two groups. The results of our data revealed that the hybrid group had a significantly shorter break-in period and did not require temporary hemodialysis. Additionally, length of hospital stay and medical costs were significantly lower in the hybrid group (all p < 0.05). The incidence of early complications was lower in the hybrid group, while the incidence of late complications was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that the hybrid method of PD catheter insertion provides a safe and efficient alternative to the traditional laparoscopic method, enabling urgent-start PD and reducing hospital stays and medical expenses. Our findings support the use of the hybrid method as a new standard of care for ESKD patients undergoing PD catheter insertion.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I² = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I² = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.

Going Home: Access for Home Modalities

The cost and health burden of ESRD continues to increase globally. Total Medicare expenditure on dialysis has increased from 229 million USD in 1973 to 35.4 billion USD in 2016. Dialysis access can represent almost a tenth of these costs. Central venous catheters have been recognized as a significant factor driving costs and mortality in this population. Home dialysis, which includes peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis, is an effective way of reducing costs related to renal replacement therapy, reducing central venous catheter usage and in many cases improving the clinical and psychosocial aspects of patients' health. Addressing access-related issues for peritoneal dialysis, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis can have impact on the success of home dialysis. This article reviews issues related to dialysis access for home therapies.

Prevention of Bloodstream Infections in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Bloodstream infections are an important cause of hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis. Eliminating bloodstream infections in the hemodialysis setting has been the focus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Making Dialysis Safer for Patients Coalition and, more recently, the CDC's partnership with the American Society of Nephrology's Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety Initiative. The majority of vascular access-associated bloodstream infections occur in patients dialyzing with central vein catheters. The CDC's core interventions for bloodstream infection prevention are the gold standard for catheter care in the hemodialysis setting and have been proven to be effective in reducing catheter-associated bloodstream infection. However, in the United States hemodialysis catheter-associated bloodstream infections continue to occur at unacceptable rates, possibly because of lapses in adherence to strict aseptic technique, or additional factors not addressed by the CDC's core interventions. There is a clear need for novel prophylactic therapies. This review highlights the recent advances and includes a discussion about the potential limitations and adverse effects associated with each option.