Randomized Study of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Urgent-Start Temporary Hemodialysis in Patients Transitioning to Kidney Failure

Comparison of survival outcomes in haemodialysis versus immediate-start peritoneal dialysis: A propensity-matched study

AIM

Recent reports suggest that immediate-start peritoneal dialysis (ISPD) initiated immediately after catheter insertion demonstrates better long-term outcomes. However, the survival rate of ISPD versus haemodialysis (HD) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare survival rates between ISPD and HD using a matched-pair cohort.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 911 patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who received HD or peritoneal dialysis at our centre between August 2005 and September 2023. After 1:1 propensity score matching between ISPD and HD patients, we calculated survival rates using Kaplan-Meier analysis and identified the influencing factors with multivariate Cox regression.

RESULTS

In this cohort of 911 patients, ISPD and HD groups included 162 and 676 patients respectively. After 1:1 propensity matching 140 patients on ISPD were matched with 140 patients on HD. The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival rates were 98.5%, 93.6%, 92.5%, 91.1%, and 91.1% for ISPD, and 96.3%, 93.0%, 90.4%, 87.2%, and 83.3% for HD groups (log-rank p = 0.17). The survival rates were comparable between the groups. However, in the non-diabetic population, patients on ISPD showed significantly higher survival rates than those on HD (log-rank p = .03). Diabetes was an independent risk factor for mortality in the ISPD group according to multivariate Cox regression.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival rates were comparable between ISPD and HD groups. The survival benefit was more pronounced in the non-diabetic population. These results suggest that ISPD may be a better renal replacement therapy option than HD, particularly for the non-diabetic ESKD population in terms of patient survival.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD

Introduction

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) shows promise for urgent-start dialysis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with automated PD (APD) having advantages. However, there is limited multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence comparing APD with temporary hemodialysis (HD) for this indication in China.

Methods

This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications.

Results

The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424).

Conclusion

For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.

Acute Peritoneal Dialysis in a Patient with Severe Uremic Syndrome and Multiple Hemodialysis Access Failure

A 67-year-old woman was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease stage V, severe uremia syndrome, hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, suspected pulmonary oedema, and multiple hemodialysis access failure. The patient is in a condition that requires emergency hemodialysis, but the patient does not have any access to undergo hemodialysis. The patient then underwent acute peritoneal dialysis and received an adequate response. The patient continued continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and responded well.

Comparison of immediate-start peritoneal dialysis without break-in period and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a two-center retrospective audit

PURPOSE

Immediate-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has emerged as a strategy for patients in need of urgent dialysis. However, the ideal timing for initiating this procedure remains uncertain. In this study, we aimed to compare complications and outcomes between immediate-start PD and conventional-start PD.

METHODS

We performed a two-center retrospective cohort study between 1 January 2015 and 31 May 2020. Patients who underwent PD were divided into immediate-start PD (without break-in period) and conventional-start PD group (break-in period within at least 14 days). The primary outcomes were the incidence of the mechanical complications and infectious complication. The secondary outcomes were technique failure and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients (106 in the immediate-start PD group and 103 in the conventional-start PD group) were included. Immediate-start PD had significantly lower catheter malfunction or migration rate compare with conventional-start PD (2.8% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.003) but comparable rates of dialysate leaks, pleuroperitoneal leaks, and hemoperitoneum. Infectious complications (exit-site infection and peritonitis) were similar between groups. Technique survival was comparable (7.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.22), while immediate-start PD exhibited lower mortality rates (0.9% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Immediate-start PD appears to be a viable option for patients in need of urgent dialysis, with reduced catheter complications and comparable infectious complications and technique survival when compared to conventional-start PD.

The effect of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start hemodialysis on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recently, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested in place of urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these methods is still unclear. This study compared the outcomes of urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD in CKD patients.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar databases, and Cochrane Library, up to 30th July 2023 for studies reporting data on all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included dialysis-related infectious and mechanical complications. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nine eligible studies involving 941 PD and 779 HD patients were analyzed. Pooled analysis demonstrated elevated risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.09), dialysis-related infectious complications (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.07), and mechanical complications (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.13) in patients undergoing urgent-start HD than in patients on urgent-start PD.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that CKD patients that received urgent-start HD are at increased risk of all-cause mortality and infectious, and mechanical complications that are associated with the dialysis than patients that received urgent-start PD. These findings have to be considered when making treatment decisions for patients with acute kidney injury. Better understanding of the mechanism of these differences may help to create guidelines for more informed clinical practices.

A comparison of urgent-start of hemodialysis vs urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of urgent-start HD(USHD) and urgent-start PD(USPD) on dialysis patients and provide references for relevant clinical practice.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Chinese and English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP) and the cutoff date for which was July 30, 2023. Studies comparing USHD and USPD were included and I2 statistics and Q tests were used to determine heterogeneity among them. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for count data.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.173 (0.070, 0.277) for USPD versus 0.214 (0.142, 0.286) for USHD, indicating that USPD had a protective effect against all-cause mortality compared to USHD (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.91). Patients receiving USPD had lower risks of infection-related mortality (RR = 0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.76), bacteremia (RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.80), and composite complications (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.41-0.71). However, no significant differences were found between USHD and USPD for cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.28-1.68) or cancer mortality (RR = 0.44; 95% CI 0.15-1.29).

CONCLUSION

Compared to USHD, USPD has better protective effects against all-cause mortality, infection-related mortality, bacteremia, and composite complications. However, more high-quality research is still needed to further investigate the impacts of the two dialysis modalities on patients.

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

Shared decision making in elderly patients with kidney failure

'Elderly' is most commonly defined as an individual aged 65 years or older. However, this definition fails to account for the differences in genetics, lifestyle and overall health that contribute to significant heterogeneity among the elderly beyond chronological age. As the world population continues to age, the prevalence of chronic diseases, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), is increasing and CKD frequently progresses to kidney failure. Moreover, frailty represents a multidimensional clinical entity highly prevalent in this population, which needs to be adequately assessed to inform and support medical decisions. Selecting the optimal treatment pathway for the elderly and frail kidney failure population, be it haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or conservative kidney management, is complex because of the presence of comorbidities associated with low survival rates and impaired quality of life. Management of these patients should involve a multidisciplinary approach including doctors from various specialties, nurses, psychologists, dieticians and physiotherapists. Studies are mostly retrospective and observational, lacking adjustment for confounders or addressing selection and indication biases, making it difficult to use these data to guide treatment decisions. Throughout this review we discuss the difficulty of making a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the clinical needs of older patients with kidney failure. We advocate that a research agenda for optimization of the critical issues we present in this review be implemented. We recommend prospective studies that address these issues, and systematic reviews incorporating the complementary evidence of both observational and interventional studies. Furthermore, we strongly support a shared decision-making process matching evidence with patient preferences to ensure that individualized choices are made regarding dialysis vs conservative kidney management, dialysis modality and optimal vascular access.

An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

Choosing a dialysis modality is an important decision for people to make as their kidney failure progresses. In doing so, their options should be informed by any absolute or relative indications that may favour one modality over another.

Methods

In creating this update, we reviewed literature using a framework that considered first, high-level outcomes (survival and modality transition) from large registry data and cohort studies when considering optimal patient pathways; second, factors at a dialysis provider level that might affect relative indications; and third, specific patient-level factors. Both main types of dialysis modality, peritoneal (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), and their subtypes were considered.

Results

For most people starting dialysis, survival is independent of modality, including those with diabetes. Better survival is seen in those with less comorbidity starting with PD or home HD, reflecting continued improvements over recent decades that have been greater than improvements seen for centre HD. There are provider-level differences in the perceived relative indications for home dialysis that appear to reflect variability in experience, prejudice, enthusiasm, and support for patients and carers. Absolute contraindications are uncommon and, in most cases, where modality prejudice exists, e.g. obesity, Adult Polycystic Kidney Disease, and social factors, this is not supported by reported outcomes.

Conclusion

Absolute contraindications to a particular dialysis modality are rare. Relative indications for or against particular modalities should be considered but are rarely more important than patient preferences.

Urgent Implantation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Kidney Injury-A Review

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and sudden exacerbation of chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently necessitate urgent kidney replacement therapy (UKRT). Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is recognized as a viable modality for managing such patients. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) may be associated with an increased number of complications and is rarely utilized. This review examines recent literature investigating the clinical outcomes of USPD in CKD and AKI. Relevant research was identified through searches of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Included studies focused on the emergency use of peritoneal dialysis in CKD or AKI and reported treatment outcomes. While no official recommendations exist for catheter implantation in USPD, the impact of the technique itself on outcomes was found to be less significant compared with the post-implantation factors. USPD represents a safe and effective treatment modality for AKI, although complications such as catheter malfunctions, leakage, and peritonitis were observed. Furthermore, USPD demonstrated efficacy in managing CKD, although it was associated with a higher incidence of complications compared to conventional-start peritoneal dialysis. Despite its cost-effectiveness, PD requires greater technical expertise from medical professionals. Close supervision and pre-planning for catheter insertion are essential for CKD patients. Whenever feasible, an urgent start should be avoided. Nevertheless, in emergency scenarios, USPD does remain a safe and efficient approach.