Using manual exchanges for an urgent-start peritoneal dialysis program

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis is an important form of kidney replacement therapy. Most patients presenting with an unplanned, urgent need for dialysis are prescribed haemodialysis, leading to peritoneal dialysis underutilisation. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis refers to treatment that is commenced within 2 weeks of catheter placement. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis represents an efficacious, cost-effective alternative to the conventional approach of commencing dialysis. There is a paucity of evidence to guide management, however experience with the technique is increasing. This article overviews the rationale and practical application of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.

Developing a theory to help guide End-Stage Renal Disease Patients to adapt to Peritoneal Dialysis: A grounded theory study

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a theory to help guide patients with end-stage renal disease to adapt to peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND

Taiwan ranks first worldwide in end-stage renal disease incidence and dialysis prevalence. Many patients cannot accept long-term dialysis treatment and thus face several physical and psychological suffering. No theory has yet been developed to help guide patients with end-stage renal disease to adapt to peritoneal dialysis.

DESIGN

A grounded theory approach was used in this study.

METHODS

A theoretical sampling was performed after interviewing 25 patients who had adapted to peritoneal dialysis at a medical centre in Taiwan from January 2018 to September 2018; data saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using open, axial and selective coding and while using the constant comparison technique. COREQ reporting guidelines were utilised.

RESULTS

A substantive theory was developed to help guide patients with end-stage renal disease to adapt to peritoneal dialysis. The core category that emerged from the data collected was 'Confronting peritoneal dialysis to live and co-exist with peritoneal dialysis'. Other key categories linked to and embraced in this core category were as follows: positive self-regulation, regulation of daily life and the process of adaptation to dialysis method.

CONCLUSION

The results could help healthcare professionals to better understand the process of end-stage renal disease patients' adaptation to peritoneal dialysis, thereby facilitating patients' adaptation to dialysis in their daily life, enhancing their quality of life and improving the quality of medical care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals could use this theory as reference when providing care for peritoneal dialysis patients to assist them in adapting to life with peritoneal dialysis as soon as possible through positive self-regulation, daily life adjustments and the process of adapting to the dialysis method.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis initiation for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring urgent dialysis without established permanent dialysis access. Recently, several small studies have reported comparable patient outcomes between urgent-start and conventional-start PD.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD 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 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD (within 2 weeks of catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD ( ≥ 2 weeks of catheter insertion) treatment in children and adults CKD patients requiring long-term dialysis were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and quality of studies were examined by two independent authors. The authors contacted investigators for additional information. Summary estimates of effect were examined using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate for the data. The certainty of evidence for individual outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (2953 participants) were included in this review, which included one multicentre RCT (122 participants) and 15 non-RCTs (2831 participants): 13 cohort studies (2671 participants) and 2 case-control studies (160 participants). The review included unadjusted data for analyses due to paucity of studies reporting adjusted data. In low certainty evidence, urgent-start PD may increase dialysate leak (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.78) compared with conventional-start PD which translated into an absolute number of 210 more leaks per 1000 (95% CI 40 to 635). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases catheter blockage (4 cohort studies, 1214 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.43; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.13), catheter malposition (6 cohort studies, 1353 participants: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.32; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 13.96), and PD dialysate flow problems (3 cohort studies, 937 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.14) compared to conventional-start PD. In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases exit-site infection (2 cohort studies, 337 participants: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.61; 1 case-control study, 104 participants RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50), exit-site bleeding (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.03 to 16.81; 1 cohort study, 27 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.32), peritonitis (7 cohort studies, 1497 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46; 2 case-control studies, participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.51), catheter readjustment (2 cohort studies, 739 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.02), or reduces technique survival (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20; 8 cohort studies, 1668 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD increased death (any cause) (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53; 7 cohort studies, 1509 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.3; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.02; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on tunnel tract infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CKD who require dialysis urgently without ready-to-use dialysis access in place, urgent-start PD may increase the risk of dialysate leak and has uncertain effects on catheter blockage, malposition or readjustment, PD dialysate flow problems, infectious complications, exit-site bleeding, technique survival, and patient survival compared with conventional-start PD.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis compared with planned peritoneal dialysis and with urgent-start hemodialysis

An increasing number of studies have focused on whether peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be used for the urgent initiation of dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and safety of urgent-start PD compared with those of planned PD and urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in this population. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies. Conference abstracts were also searched in relevant websites. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 15 trials involving 2426 participants were identified. The quality of the included studies was fair, but the quality of evidence was very low. Unadjusted meta-analysis showed that urgent-start PD had significantly higher mortality than planned PD, while adjusted meta-analysis did not show a significant difference. Higher incident of leakage and catheter mechanical dysfunction were observed in urgent-start PD. However, peritonitis, exit-site infection, or PD technique survival were comparable between urgent-start and planned PD. The all-cause mortality was comparable in urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD. Bacteremia was significantly lower in the urgent-start PD group than with urgent-start HD. Based on limited evidences, PD may be a viable alternative to HD for CKD patients requiring urgent-start dialysis. Because of the inconsistent results and the low quality of evidence, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn for whether urgent-start PD was comparable with planned PD. Therefore, high-quality and large-scale studies are needed in the future.

Implementation of Urgent Start Peritoneal Dialysis Reduces Hemodialysis Catheter Use and Hospital Stay in Patients with Unplanned Dialysis Start

Background: Unplanned start of renal replacement therapy is common in patients with end-stage renal disease and often accomplished by hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). Urgent start using peritoneal dialysis (PD) could be an alternative for some of the patients; however, this requires a hospital-based PD center that offers a structured urgent start PD (usPD) program. Methods: In this prospective study, we describe the implementation of an usPD program at our university hospital by structuring the process from presentation to PD catheter implantation and start of PD within a few days. For clinical validation, we compared the patient flow before (2013–2015) and after (2016–2018) availability of usPD. Results: In the 3 years before the availability of usPD, 14% (n = 12) of incident PD patients (n = 87) presented in an unplanned situation and were initially treated with HD using a CVC. In the 3 years after implementation of the usPD program, 18% (n = 18) of all incident PD patients (n = 103) presented in an unplanned situation of whom n = 12 (12%) were treated with usPD and n = 6 (6%) with initial HD. usPD significantly reduced the use of HD by 57% (p = 0.0005). Hospital stay was similar in patients treated with usPD (median 9 days) compared to those with elective PD (8 days), and significantly lower than in patients with initial HD (26 days, p = 0.0056). Conclusions: Implementation of an usPD program reduces HD catheter use and hospital stay in the unplanned situation.

The modality of choice, manual or automated, for urgent start peritoneal dialysis

Over the last decade, urgent start peritoneal dialysis (USPD), defined as initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) before the traditionally recommended break-in period of 2-4 weeks, has increasingly been seen as a viable option for late-presenting end-stage renal disease patients, obviating the need for haemodialysis via central venous catheter. Different prescriptions and protocols involving both manual and automated exchanges have been published, but there is no head-to-head comparison of the two modalities and no consensus on the most suitable modality exists. Evaluation of the available evidence suggests that PD can be initiated urgently using either or both options without much difference in the outcome. The two most critical aspects dictating the success of a USPD programme are using low dwell volumes and keeping patients in a strict supine position during the dialysis exchanges in the first couple of weeks of the therapy. These measures are crucial in keeping the intraperitoneal pressure to a minimum and reduce the risk of mechanical complications, including catheter leaks and malpositioning.

Is surgical PD catheter insertion safe for urgent-start peritoneal dialysis?

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) is increasingly seen as a viable alternative to hemodialysis through a central venous catheter for late-presenting end-stage renal disease patients. However, concerns remain about starting dialysis early following the surgical implantation of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter; urgent PD is often thought to be a safe option only after minimally invasive percutaneous catheter insertions. Analysis of the cumulative data from published literature presented in this review appears to negate this general perception and shows that compared to the percutaneous catheter insertions, starting PD urgently following surgically placed catheter is not associated with more catheter leaks, dysfunctions, or other complications. The outcome of USPD is independent of the mode of catheter insertion. Instead, measures to minimize intra-peritoneal pressure including using the low initial dwell volume based on patient's weight and body habitus and keeping patients in strict supine posture during exchanges in the first 2 weeks of treatment are the two most important factors ensuring a minimization of the risk of catheter-related complications.