Costs of home assistance for peritoneal dialysis: results of a European survey

Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative).

RESULTS

There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency.

LIMITATIONS

This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

There are many barriers to home dialysis use in the United States. However, we know little about which barriers are the most important to patients and clinicians. This makes it challenging to develop strategies to increase home dialysis use. In this study, we surveyed patients, care partners, and clinicians across the country to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis, namely (1) patients/care partners identified fear of home dialysis, lack of space, and lack of home-based support; and (2) clinicians identified poor patient education, limited support for staff and patients, and lack of experienced staff. These findings suggest that patients and clinicians perceive different barriers and that both sets of barriers should be addressed to expand home dialysis use.

A retrospective clinical and economic analysis of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis programme in Western Australia

BACKGROUND

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (aPD) represents an alternative kidney replacement therapy for dialysis-dependent patients whose only other options are prolonged hospitalisations or transfer to in-centre haemodialysis (HD). Most programmes have not examined the role of temporary aPD, and there is limited data surrounding the economic implications of temporary aPD programmes. The main aim of this study was to describe the cost-effectiveness of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD) programme, for patients whose only reason to stay in hospital was the temporary inability to independently perform PD at home.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-centre analysis of 45 referrals for aAPD from November 2015 to May 2021. Two groups of patients were enrolled in the study: respite patients already established on PD (to facilitate discharge or prevent admission) and new patients who were not yet trained (to facilitate discharge). To calculate the cost differential, patients were allocated to either staying in hospital or transferring to centre-based HD with comparison to costs on aAPD. Costs were calculated using a healthcare system perspective over the duration of aAPD assistance. Clinical outcomes including peritonitis rate, hospitalisation and mortality were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1349 episodes of aAPD care were delivered. One thousand forty-two episodes (77%) were for respite patients and 307 episodes (23%) were for new patients awaiting training. The mean duration of assistance was 18 days for pretraining patients and 37 days for respite patients. Overall, the mean length of stay on the programme was 30 days with a range of 1-263 days (SD 43) and 73% of patients graduated to self-care PD. The cost of the aAPD programme was $242 per visit, with an average cost $7260 per patient-episode. The aAPD programme was significantly cheaper than the alternatives, with average hospitalization costs $46,170 per episode, and in-centre HD costs of $9667. $1.497 million was saved over the course of the study. Eleven hospitalisations occurred and the peritonitis rate was 0.8 episodes per patient-year. Two patients died while on aAPD.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first detailed description of an aAPD respite programme in Australia. We conclude that the implementation of a temporary aAPD programme could lead to a significant reduction in healthcare costs, however peritonitis rates were high.

Connection assist devices for peritoneal dialysis

Patients with kidney failure who require kidney replacement therapy (KRT) have been increasing globally. Home-based therapies, such as peritoneal dialysis (PD), allow patients to undergo KRT in the home environment, alleviating treatment costs, patient transport, and hospital admission. Peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis is still the most frequent complication of PD and is often related to technique failure, which can result in PD failure, transfer to hemodialysis, or mortality. The cause of technique failure is multifactorial, and a portion of technique failure is due to underlying physical or cognitive disabilities. There are several connection devices that have been developed to reduce CAPD-related peritonitis. These connection devices are reviewed in this article.

Setting Up Home Dialysis Programs: Now and in the Future

Home dialysis utilization has been growing in the United States over the past decade but still lags behind similar socioeconomic nations. More than half of dialysis facilities in the United States either are not licensed to offer home dialysis or, despite a license, have no patients dialyzing at home, and many programs have a relatively small census. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, and payers, have identified increased home dialysis use as an important goal. To realize these goals, nephrologists and kidney care professionals need a sound understanding of the key considerations in home dialysis center operation. In this review, we outline the core domains required to set up and operate a home dialysis program in the United States now and in the future.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis: strategies and outcomes

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (asPD) is a modality intended for not self-sufficient patients, mainly elderly, who are not able to perform peritoneal dialysis (PD) alone and require some help to manage the treatment. In the last decades, many countries developed strategies of asPD to face with aging of dialysis population and give an answer to the increasing demand of health service for elderly. Model of asPD varies according to the type of assistants employed and intensity of assistance provided. Both health care and non-health care assistants have been used with good clinical results. A mixed model of help, using different professional figures for short time or for longer according to patients’ need, has been proved successful and cost-effective. Outcomes of asPD are reported in different ways, and the comparative effect of asPD is unclear. Quality of life has rarely been evaluated; however, patients seem to be satisfied with the assistance provided, since it allows them to both retain independence and to be relieved from the burden of self-care. Assisted PD should not be intended as a PD-favoring strategy, but as a model that allows home dialysis also in patients who would not be eligible for PD because of social, cognitive or physical barriers.

Trends in assisted peritoneal dialysis over the last decade: a cohort study from the French Peritoneal Dialysis Registry

BACKGROUND

There is limited information available on the use of assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) over time and the impact of economic incentives on its utilization. The aim of this study was to describe the trends in assisted PD utilization and the type of assistance provided. We wanted to estimate if an economic incentive implemented in 2011 in France was associated with an increase in the utilization of nurse-assisted PD.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre study, based on data from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry, analysed 11 987 patients who initiated PD in France between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015. Adjusted Cox regression with robust variance was used to examine the initiation of assisted PD, both nurse-assisted and family-assisted, accounting for the nonlinear impact of the PD starting time.

RESULTS

There were 6149 (51%) incident patients on assisted PD, 5052 (82%) on nurse-assisted PD and 1097 (18%) on family-assisted PD over the study period. In the adjusted analysis, calendar time was associated with the assisted PD rate: it declined from 2008 until 2013 before flattening out and then it increased after 2014. Nurse-assisted PD utilization increased significantly after 2012, whereas family-assisted PD utilization decreased linearly over time (prevalence ratio = 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The assisted PD rate decreased until 2013, mainly because of a decline in family-assisted PD. The uptake in nurse-assisted PD observed from 2013 reflects the effect of an economic incentive adopted in late 2011 to increase PD utilization.

A Systematic Review and Jurisdictional Scan of the Evidence Characterizing and Evaluating Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Models

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Compared with hemodialysis, home peritoneal dialysis alleviates the burden of travel, facilitates independence, and is less costly. Physical, cognitive, or psychosocial factors may preclude peritoneal dialysis in otherwise eligible patients. Assisted peritoneal dialysis, where trained personnel assist with home peritoneal dialysis, may be an option, but the optimal model is unknown. The objective of this work is to characterize existing assisted peritoneal dialysis models and synthesize clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted (search dates: January 1995-September 2018). A focused gray literature search was also completed, limited to developed nations. Included studies focused on home-based assisted peritoneal dialysis; studies with the assist provided exclusively by unpaid family caregivers were excluded. All outcomes were narratively synthesized; quantitative outcomes were graphically depicted.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies, totaling 46,597 patients, with assisted peritoneal dialysis programs identified in 20 jurisdictions. Two categories emerged for models of assisted peritoneal dialysis on the basis of type of assistance: health care and non-health care professional assistance. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous, ranging from patient-level outcomes of survival, to resource use and transfer to hemodialysis; however, the comparative effect of assisted peritoneal dialysis was unclear. In two qualitative studies examining the patient experience, the maintenance of independence was identified as an important theme.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported outcomes and quality were heterogeneous, and relative efficacy of assisted peritoneal dialysis could not be determined from included studies. Although the patient voice was under-represented, suggestions to improve assisted peritoneal dialysis included using a person-centered model of care, ensuring continuity of nurses providing the peritoneal dialysis assist, and measures to support patient independence. Although attractive elements of assisted peritoneal dialysis are identified, further evidence is needed to connect assisted peritoneal dialysis outcomes with programmatic features and their associated funding models.

Attitudes of nephrologists towards assisted home dialysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Assisted home dialysis (AHD) is an option to combine the benefits of home dialysis therapy with the needs of dialysis patients who are unable to perform self-treatment at home. While this method is growing in many countries worldwide, no data so far are reported for Germany.

METHODS

A survey was designed to identify the barriers to the implementation of AHD with the focus on attitudes and beliefs concerning AHD. The survey was sent to all 2060 members of the Germany Society of Nephrology.

RESULTS

The response rate was 14% of nephrologists (n = 286), representing 24% of all German centres. AHD was regarded as a highly meaningful option (>90% of all responding nephrologists). Fifty-five percent of the centres practice AHD (preferred peritoneal dialysis). The number of treated patients on AHD was small (77% of the centres treat no more than 10 patients). The nephrologists in centres that performed AHD were of older age and the number of dialysis patients treated in these centres was greater. AHD was offered in 57% of centres at chronic kidney disease Stage 4. Inadequate conventional dialysis and patient's request were reasons for choosing AHD. Barriers for offering AHD were lack of reimbursement, shortage of staff, lack of expertise and lack of team motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the view of German nephrologists, AHD is a meaningful method to provide home dialysis care. Inadequate funding and a lack of qualified staff were identified as severe barriers to implementation of AHD. To overcome these barriers and to achieve a higher penetration of AHD, dedicated actions have to be considered. Further studies are needed to prove the AHD concept with regard to outcome effects and cost efficacy.

Worldwide Experiences with Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is common in the elderly population, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) is often required. However, in this particular subgroup of patients, the choice between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) is often not an easy decision to make. Published literature has adequately demonstrated that PD prevalence is significantly less than HD across all patient age groups despite several advantages. We also know that elderly patients are less likely to complete a PD assessment, due to both medical and social barriers. Additionally, elderly patients are often reluctant to go ahead with PD despite being eligible PD candidates, mainly due to the fear of performing self-therapy. Recently, many new assisted PD (asPD) programs have cropped up in several countries. The main aim of these programs is to overcome barriers to PD and to promote PD utilization among elderly and non-self-sufficient patients. Although asPD has proven to be associated with good clinical results, there still remain concerns about its greater use. In this review, we will first describe an ideal asPD model and then enumerate examples of strategies and outcomes associated with successful asPD programs worldwide.

PD vs HD in Post-Economic Crisis Greece-Differences in Patient Characteristics and Estimation of Therapy Cost

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate patient characteristics and make an estimation of the cost of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) to Greek society during the economic crisis.

METHODS

We recorded the characteristics and the total cost of dialysis treatment in 100 patients on PD and 100 on HD. Total costs included dialysis procedure, consumables, drugs, laboratory tests, food, and transportation fees (only HD), covered by patients' insurance. Also included were medical and administrative salaries, purchase and maintenance of equipment and sanitary material, all covered by the state hospital.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 64.5 ± 16.8 years (PD) and 62.8 ± 15.1 (HD) (p < 0,001). The most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was diabetes (32% for PD and 24% for HD patients). A total of 35% of the PD patients were employed vs 4% of the HD patients (p < 0,001). The mean distance from home for PD patients was 41.6 ± 17.3 km, while for HD patients, it was 9.4 ± 1.5 km (p < 0,001). Mean monthly cost for PD and HD treatment per patient was €4,019.20 ± 1,126.30 and €3,254.30 ± 37.50, respectively, both fully covered by patients' insurance. Mean monthly cost for PD or HD dialysis unit maintenance was €11,660.80 and €56,270.50, respectively, also fully covered by the state.

CONCLUSION

There is likely to be a considerable difference in terms of total cost of PD vs HD therapy, owing to the fact that the operational cost of a PD unit appears to be significantly lower than that of a HD unit.

Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis for Older People with End-Stage Renal Disease: The French and Danish Experience

Older people are the largest and fastest growing group of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and, due to advanced age and a heavy burden of comorbidities, they are usually not candidates for renal transplantation or home-based dialysis treatment. Some of the barriers for home treatment are non-modifiable, but the majority of physical disabilities and psychosocial problems can be overcome provided that assistance is offered to the patients at home.In the present review, we describe the programs for assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) in France and Denmark, respectively. In both nations, assisted PD is totally publicly funded, and the cost of assisted PD is comparable to the cost of in-center HD. Assisted continuous ambulatory PD (aCAPD) is the preferred modality in France whereas assisted automated PD (aAPD) is the preferred modality in Denmark. Assistants are professional nurses or healthcare technicians briefly educated by expert PD nurses from the dialysis unit.The establishment of a program for assisted PD may increase the number of patients actually treated with PD and may reduce the risk of PD technique failure and prolong PD duration. Compared with autonomous PD patients, patients on assisted PD may have shorter patient survival and peritonitis-free survival indicating that, besides advanced age and the burden of comorbidities, dependency on help may be an independent risk factor for poorer outcome.Assisted PD is an evolving dialysis modality, and may in the future prove to be a feasible complementary alternative to in-center hemodialysis (HD) for the growing group of dependent older patients with ESRD.

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Assisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study by linking a quality assurance dataset to administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were accrued between January 1, 2004 and July 9, 2013. Individuals were grouped into assisted peritoneal dialysis (family or home care assisted) or in-center hemodialysis on the basis of their first outpatient dialysis modality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score was used to create a sample in which the baseline covariates were well balanced.

RESULTS

The study included 872 patients in the in-center hemodialysis group and 203 patients in the assisted peritoneal dialysis group. Using an intention to treat approach, patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis had a similar hospitalization rate of 11.1 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 9.4 to 13.0) compared with 12.9 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 16.1) in the hemodialysis group (P=0.19). Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis were more likely to be hospitalized for dialysis-related reasons (admitted for 2.4 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 3.2] compared with 1.6 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3] in the hemodialysis group; P=0.04). This difference was partly explained by more hospital days because of peritonitis. Modality switching was associated with high rates of hospital days per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Assisted peritoneal dialysis was associated with similar rates of all-cause hospitalization compared with in-center hemodialysis. Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis who experienced peritonitis and technique failure had high rates of hospitalization.

Overcoming the Underutilisation of Peritoneal Dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis is troubled with declining utilisation as a form of renal replacement therapy in developed countries. We review key aspects of therapy evidenced to have a potential to increase its utilisation. The best evidence to repopulate PD programmes is provided for the positive impact of timely referral and systematic and motivational predialysis education: average odds ratio for instituting peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis was 2.6 across several retrospective studies on the impact of predialysis education. Utilisation of PD for unplanned acute dialysis starts facilitated by implantation of peritoneal catheters by interventional nephrologists may diminish the vast predominance of haemodialysis done by central venous catheters for unplanned dialysis start. Assisted peritoneal dialysis can improve accessibility of home based dialysis to elderly, frail, and dependant patients, whose quality of life on replacement therapy may benefit most from dialysis performed at home. Peritoneal dialysis providers should perform close monitoring, preventing measures, and timely prophylactic therapy in patients judged to be prone to EPS development. Each peritoneal dialysis programme should regularly monitor, report, and act on key quality indicators to manifest its ability of constant quality improvement and elevate the confidence of interested patients and financing bodies in the programme.

Evaluating the benefits of home-based peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective renal replacement strategy for patients suffering from end-stage renal disease. PD offers patient survival comparable to or better than in-center hemodialysis while preserving residual kidney function, empowering patient autonomy, and reducing financial burden to payors. The majority of patients suffering from kidney failure are eligible for PD. In patients with cardiorenal syndrome and uncontrolled fluid status, PD is of particular benefit, decreasing hospitalization rates and duration. This review discusses the benefits of chronic PD, performed by the patient or a caregiver at home. Recognition of the benefits of PD is a cornerstone in stimulating the use of this treatment strategy.

Chronic kidney disease and support provided by home care services: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic diseases, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), are growing in incidence and prevalence, in part due to an aging population. Support provided through home care services may be useful in attaining a more efficient and higher quality care for CKD patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies examining home care interventions among adult CKD patients incorporating all outcomes. Studies examining home care services as an alternative to acute, post-acute or hospice care and those for long-term maintenance in patients' homes were included. Studies with only a home training intervention and those without an applied research component were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (10 cohort, 4 non-comparative, 2 cross-sectional, 1 randomized) examined the support provided by home care services in 15,058 CKD patients. Fourteen studies included peritoneal dialysis (PD), two incorporated hemodialysis (HD) and one included both PD and HD patients in their treatment groups. Sixteen studies focused on the dialysis phase of care in their study samples and one study included information from both the dialysis and pre-dialysis phases of care. Study settings included nine single hospital/dialysis centers and three regional/metropolitan areas and five were at the national level. Studies primarily focused on nurse assisted home care patients and mostly examined PD related clinical outcomes. In PD studies with comparators, peritonitis risks and technique survival rates were similar across home care assisted patients and comparators. The risk of mortality, however, was higher for home care assisted PD patients. While most studies adjusted for age and comorbidities, information about multidimensional prognostic indices that take into account physical, psychological, cognitive, functional and social factors among CKD patients was not easily available.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies focused on nurse assisted home care patients on dialysis. The majority were single site studies incorporating small patient populations. There are gaps in the literature regarding the utility of providing home care to CKD patients and the impact this has on healthcare resources.

The role of peritoneal dialysis in modern renal replacement therapy

Most patients starting dialysis can choose between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis. There is little evidence proving that one form of dialysis is better than the other; although there may be an early advantage to peritoneal dialysis (PD) in young patients with residual function this effect is short-lived. Technique failure develops after years on PD so dialysis modality will often change during a long dialysis career. Quality of life studies, which must be interpreted carefully, indicate that patients require information about the impact of dialysis on their lifestyle as well as health-related outcomes so that they can choose the most suitable dialysis modality. Increasing numbers of frail elderly patients are starting dialysis; support in the home by nursing staff may facilitate the use of PD in this group. In the UK guidelines prioritise the patient's choice of dialysis modality (where feasible) based on good quality predialysis education. Cost of treatment is generally lower on PD, which is particularly recommended for patients with residual renal function and few comorbidities.

[Assisted peritoneal dialysis: home-based renal replacement therapy for the elderly patient]

The number of elderly patients with end stage renal disease is constantly increasing. Conventional hämodiaylsis as the mainstay of renal replacement therapy is often poorly tolerated by frail eldery patients with multiple comorbidities. Although many of these patients would prefer a home based dialysis treatment, the number of elderly patients using peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still low. Impaired physical and cognitive function often generates insurmountable barriers for self care peritoneal dialysis. Assisted peritoneal dialysis can overcome many of these barriers and give elderly patients the ability of a renal replacement therapy in their own homes respecting their needs.

Is assisted peritoneal dialysis associated with technique survival when competing events are considered?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study assessed whether assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) was associated with a lower risk for technique failure using methods developed for survival analysis in the presence of competing risks.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This retrospective cohort study, based on data from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry, analyzed 9822 incident patients starting PD between January 2002 and December 2010. The observation period ended on June 1, 2011. Time to transfer to hemodialysis was compared between patients with assisted PD and those undergoing self-care PD.

RESULTS

There were 5286 patients undergoing assisted PD; 4230 of these were assisted by a community nurse and 1056 by family. Assisted PD patients were older and had a higher Charlson comorbidity index than self-care PD patients. There were 7594 events: 3495 deaths, 2464 transfers to hemodialysis, 1489 renal transplantations, and 146 renal function recoveries. According to a Cox model, assistance and center size were associated with a lower risk for technique failure, whereas hemodialysis before PD, early peritonitis, and transplantation failure were associated with a higher risk for transfer to hemodialysis. A Fine and Gray regression model showed that assisted PD was associated with a lower risk for transfer to hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients undergoing self-care PD, those with assisted PD had a lower risk for transfer to hemodialysis, a higher risk for death, and a lower risk for transplantation.

The impact of type of assistance on characteristics of peritonitis in elderly peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

The elderly patients are the fastest-growing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population in Taiwan. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been employed to overcome the barriers to PD. The aim of this retrospective, single-center study was to describe the status of assisted PD and the impact of type of assistance on peritonitis in elderly patients in Taiwan.

METHODS

One hundred and two patients initiated PD at the age of 65 or older between 2000 and 2008; 79 episodes of peritonitis occurred during the follow-ups. The patients and episodes of peritonitis were divided into three groups based on the type of assistance: (1) self-care: patients performing dialysis independently, (2) family: patients whose dialysis was performed by family, (3) caregiver: patients whose dialysis was performed by a private caregiver. Patient characteristics and incidence, etiology and outcomes of peritonitis were compared.

RESULTS

There were 26 (25.5%), 44 (43.1%), and 32 (31.4%) patients in the self-care, family, and caregiver groups, respectively. The overall peritonitis rate was 1/33 patient-months. Patients in the caregiver group were older and had more comorbidities than the self-care group. They had a trend of higher overall peritonitis rate (1/24 patient-months, P = 0.077) and fungal peritonitis rate (P = 0.060) compared to the self-care and family groups, but this was statistically non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-fourths of elderly PD patients in the present study required assistance from family members or private caregivers. Caregiver-assisted patients were significantly older and had more comorbidities. Also, a non-significant trend of higher peritonitis incidence was observed in these patients.