Radiological versus surgical implantation of first catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Percutaneous Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters

Patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis encounter significant challenges in care coordination and experience higher complication rates. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an evidence-based alternative that significantly improves patients' quality of life.Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion methods include open surgical, laparoscopic, peritoneoscopic, and percutaneous image-guided approaches. Despite comparable success rates and cost-effectiveness, the US healthcare system underutilizes the percutaneous method.This article aims to provide an overview of the essential components of the technique of percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion, as well as address patient selection nuances and considerations for urgent-start dialysis. Additionally, it reviews the outcomes and complications associated with image-guided percutaneous PD catheter placement, advocating for its wider adoption.

Clinical practice guideline for the prevention and management of peritoneal dialysis associated infections in children: 2024 update

Infection-related complications remain the most significant cause for morbidity and technique failure in infants, children and adolescents who receive maintenance peritoneal dialysis (PD). The 2024 update of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention and Management of Peritoneal Dialysis Associated Infection in Children builds upon previous such guidelines published in 2000 and 2012 and provides comprehensive treatment guidance as recommended by an international group of pediatric PD experts based upon a review of published literature and pediatric PD registry data. The workgroup prioritized updating key clinical issues contained in the 2012 guidelines, in addition to addressing additional questions developed using the PICO format. A variety of new guideline statements, highlighted by those pertaining to antibiotic therapy of peritonitis as a result of the evolution of antibiotic susceptibilities, antibiotic stewardship and clinical registry data, as well as new clinical benchmarks, are included. Recommendations for future research designed to fill important knowledge gaps are also provided.

A New, Safe, and Effective Technique for Percutaneous Insertion of a Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter

A properly functioning peritoneal catheter is an essential element of effective peritoneal dialysis (PD). Currently, there are three techniques available for PD catheter placement, which include open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and percutaneous catheter placement (PCP). Currently, no particular catheter placement approach has been proven with certainty to provide superior outcomes. We present a new modified PCP method with the use of the Veress needle covered with an intravascular catheter (IC) and preliminary clinical results of PD catheter placements with this new technique. The endpoints used in the study were 1-year technical survival of the catheter, and the incidence of early (1 month) mechanical as well as infection complications. The catheter was implanted in 24 patients. The catheter survival rate was 100%; however, in two cases, the catheters were removed due to complications not associated with PD treatment. No early mechanical complications such as bleeding, hematoma, perforations, internal organ damage, exit site leaks, or hernia in the place of insertion were observed. Similarly, no early infectious complications were observed. During the 1-year follow-up, no catheter migration occurred. Our results showed that the new PCP technique is a safe and easy procedure that minimizes the occurrence of both mechanical and infectious complications and ensures good catheter survival.

Advanced Image-Guided Percutaneous Technique Versus Advanced Laparoscopic Surgical Technique for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement

Rationale & Objective

Timely placement of a functional peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter is crucial to long-term PD success. Advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques both represent best practice catheter placement options. Advanced image-guided percutaneous is a minimally invasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study comparing time from referral to procedure, complication rate, and 1-year catheter survival between placement techniques.

Setting & Participants

Patients who had advanced laparoscopic or advanced image-guided percutaneous PD catheter placement from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 in an integrated Northern California health care delivery system.

Exposure

PD catheter placement using advanced laparoscopic or advanced image-guided percutaneous techniques.

Outcomes

One-year PD catheter survival; major, minor, and infectious complications; time from referral to PD catheter placement; and procedure time.

Analytical Approach

Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare referral and procedure times; χ2/Fisher exact tests to compare complications; and modified least-squares regression to compare adjusted 1-year catheter survival between PD placement techniques.

Results

We identified 191 and 238 PD catheters placed through advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques, respectively. Adjusted 1-year PD catheter survival was 80% (95% CI, 74%-87%) using advanced image-guided percutaneous technique vs 91% (87%-96%) using advanced laparoscopic technique (P = 0.01). Major complications were <1% in both groups. Minor and infectious complications were 45.6% and 38.7% in advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques, respectively (P = 0.01). Median days from referral to procedure were 12 and 33 for patients undergoing advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques, respectively (P < 0.001). Median procedure time was 30 and 44.5 minutes for patients undergoing advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques, respectively (P < 0.001).

Limitations

Retrospective study with practice preference influenced by timing, local expertise, and resources.

Conclusions

Both advanced image-guided percutaneous and advanced laparoscopic techniques reported rare major complications and demonstrated excellent (advanced laparoscopic) and acceptable (advanced image-guided percutaneous) 1-year PD catheter survival. For patients referred for PD catheter placement at centers where advanced laparoscopic resources or expertise remain limited, the advanced image-guided percutaneous technique can provide a complementary and timely option to support the utilization of PD.

Plain-Language Summary

Peritoneal dialysis is a preferred dialysis modality for many patients. However, the lack of available skilled surgeons can limit the placement of the peritoneal dialysis catheter in a timely manner. In the past decade, interventional radiology has developed expertise in placing peritoneal dialysis catheters. Using data from an integrated health care system, we compared the outcome of peritoneal dialysis catheters placed using laparoscopic surgery and interventional radiology techniques. Our results showed excellent 1-year patency of peritoneal dialysis catheters placed using laparoscopic surgery, whereas interventional radiology placement of catheters had lower but acceptable 1-year patency survival, based on best practice guideline criteria. Hence, interventional radiology placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters may be a viable alternative when laparoscopic surgery is not available or feasible.

SAGES peritoneal dialysis access guideline update 2023

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been used for both de novo insertion and salvage of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters. Advanced laparoscopic, basic laparoscopic, open, and image-guided techniques have evolved as the most popular techniques. The aim of this guideline was to develop evidence-based guidelines that support surgeons, patients, and other physicians in decisions on minimally invasive peritoneal dialysis access and the salvage of malfunctioning catheters in both adults and children.

METHODS

A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons reviewed the literature since the prior guideline was published in 2014 and developed seven key questions in adults and four in children. After a systematic review of the literature, by the panel, evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.

RESULTS

After systematic review, data extraction, and evidence to decision meetings, the panel agreed on twelve recommendations for the peri-operative performance of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis access surgery and management of catheter dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the adult population, conditional recommendations were made in favor of: staged hernia repair followed by PD catheter insertion over simultaneous and traditional start over urgent start of PD when medically possible. Furthermore, the panel suggested advanced laparoscopic insertion techniques rather than basic laparoscopic techniques or open insertion. Conditional recommendations were made for either advanced laparoscopic or image-guided percutaneous insertion and for either nonoperative or operative salvage. A recommendation could not be made regarding concomitant clean-contaminated surgery in adults. In the pediatric population, conditional recommendations were made for either traditional or urgent start of PD, concomitant clean or clean-contaminated surgery and PD catheter placement rather than staged, and advanced laparoscopic placement rather than basic or open insertion.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Complications after Insertion by Surgeons, Radiologists, or Nephrologists

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative aims to increase rates of utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. One of the first steps to PD is successful catheter placement, which can be performed by surgeons, interventional radiologists, or nephrologists. We examined the association between operator subspecialty and risk of needing a follow-up procedure in the first 90 days after initial PD catheter implantation. Overall, we found that 15.5% of catheters required revision, removal, or a second catheter placement within 90 days. The odds of requiring a follow-up procedure was 36% higher for interventional radiologists and 86% higher for interventional nephrologists compared with general surgeons. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the function of catheters across different operator types.

BACKGROUND

The US government has implemented incentives to increase the use of PD. Successful placement of PD catheters is an important step to increasing PD utilization rates. Our objective was to compare initial outcomes after PD catheter placement by different types of operators.

METHODS

We included PD-naïve patients insured by Medicare who had a PD catheter inserted between 2010 and 2019. We examined the association between specialty of the operator (general surgeon, vascular surgeon, interventional radiologist, or interventional nephrologist) and odds of needing a follow-up procedure, which we defined as catheter removal, replacement, or revision within 90 days of the initial procedure. Mixed logistic regression models clustered by operator were used to examine the association between operator type and outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 46,973 patients treated by 5205 operators (71.1% general surgeons, 17.2% vascular surgeons, 9.7% interventional radiologists, 2.0% interventional nephrologists). 15.5% of patients required a follow-up procedure within 90 days of the initial insertion, of whom 2.9% had a second PD catheter implanted, 6.6% underwent PD catheter removal, and 5.9% had a PD catheter revision within 90 days of the initial insertion. In models adjusted for patient and operator characteristics, the odds of requiring a follow-up procedure within 90 days were highest for interventional nephrologists (HR, 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.22) and interventional radiologists (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.58) followed by vascular surgeons (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.14) compared with general surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of needing a follow-up procedure after initial PD catheter placement varied by operator specialty and was higher for interventionalists and lowest for general surgeons.

Optimizing peritoneal dialysis initiation: A comparative cohort study of catheter placement methods for shortening break-in periods

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) guidelines recommend a 14-day break-in period after catheter placement, yet this period could be shortened with new insertion techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare percutaneous vs. surgical catheter insertion in a newly established PD program. The break-in period was intentionally shortened to <24 h to start PD almost immediately.

RESULTS

We included 223 subjects who underwent percutaneous (34%) or surgical (66%) catheter placement. Compared to the surgical group, the percutaneous group had a higher proportion of early dialysis initiation within 24 h (97% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), similar successful initiation rates (87% vs. 92%, p = 0.34), and shorter lengths of stay (12 [9-18] vs. 18 [14-22] days, p < 0.001). Percutaneous insertion increased the likelihood of successful PD initiation within 24 h (OR 74, 95% CI 31-182), without increasing major complications.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous placement could represent a cost-effective and efficient technique to shorten break-in periods.

Comparing surgeon- and nephrologist-inserted Tenckhoff catheters: experience from a metropolitan centre in Sydney

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective home-based form of dialysis. Although several factors limit its use, the timely and successful insertion of a PD catheter is essential for increased uptake.

AIMS

This retrospective observational study was performed at a tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney with the aim of comparing outcomes of PD catheter insertion using a percutaneous, modified Seldinger technique utilised by a trained nephrologist to the traditional surgical insertion using a mini-laparotomy.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 194 PD catheters were inserted. Aside from lower body mass indexes in the nephrologist-led interventions (P = 0.02), patient demographics were well matched. Time-to-insertion was significantly shorter with the percutaneous technique (P < 0.001). Univariant logistic regression noted no difference in the complication rate between the nephrologist-inserted and surgically inserted groups (likelihood ratio, 1.59; P = 0.08). There were differences in the type of adverse outcomes with each technique. Surgical procedures were more likely to have exit site leaks (P = 0.009) and peritonitis (P = 0.004), whereas procedure abandonment (P = 0.009) was more common in nephrologist-led procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study highlights that with careful patient selection, trained nephrologists in metropolitan areas can successfully insert PD catheters. Our experience noted fewer delays to catheter insertion, with similar total complication rates.

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.

Optimizing peritoneal dialysis catheter placement

Long-term success of peritoneal dialysis as a kidney replacement therapy requires a well-functioning peritoneal dialysis catheter. With ongoing reductions in infectious complications, there is an increased emphasis on the impact of catheter-related and mechanical complications. There is currently a marked variation in the utilization of various types of catheters (double cuff vs single cuff, coiled tip vs straight tip), methods of catheter insertion (advanced laparoscopic, open surgical dissection, image guided percutaneous, blind percutaneous), timing of catheter insertion, location of catheter placement (pre-sternal v. abdominal) and peri-operative practices. Specialized approaches to catheter placement in clinical practice include use of extended catheters and embedded catheters. Marked variations in patient lifestyle preferences and comorbidities, specifically in high acuity patient populations (polycystic kidney disease, obesity, cirrhosis) necessitate individualized approaches to catheter placement and care. Current consensus guidelines recommend local procedural expertise, consideration of patient characteristics and appropriate resources to support catheter placement and long-term functioning. This review focuses on an overview of approaches to catheter placement with emphasis on a patient-centered approach.

Catheter insertion techniques for improving catheter function and clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) relies on the optimal functionality of the flexible plastic PD catheter present within the peritoneal cavity to enable effective treatment. As a result of limited evidence, it is uncertain if the PD catheter's insertion method influences the rate of catheter dysfunction and, thus, the quality of dialysis therapy. Numerous variations of four basic techniques have been adopted in an attempt to improve and maintain PD catheter function. This review evaluates the association between PD catheter insertion technique and associated differences in  PD catheter function and post-PD catheter insertion complications OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to 1) evaluate if a specific technique used for PD catheter insertion has lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction (early and late) and technique failure; and 2) examine if any of the available techniques results in a reduction in post-procedure complication rates including postoperative haemorrhage, exit-site infection and peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 24 November 2022 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults and children undergoing PD catheter insertion. The studies examined any two PD catheter insertion techniques, including laparoscopic, open-surgical, percutaneous and peritoneoscopic insertion. Primary outcomes of interest were PD catheter function and technique survival.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. Main outcomes in the Summary of Findings tables include primary outcomes - early PD catheter function, long-term PD catheter function, technique failure and postoperative complications. A random effects model was used to perform meta-analyses; risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) were calculated for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. Nine studies were suitable for inclusion in quantitative meta-analysis (670 randomised participants). Five studies compared laparoscopic with open PD catheter insertion, and four studies compared a 'medical' insertion technique with open surgical PD catheter insertion: percutaneous (2) and peritoneoscopic (2). Random sequence generation was judged to be at low risk of bias in eight studies. Allocation concealment was reported poorly, with only five studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias. Performance bias was judged to be high risk in 10 studies. Attrition bias and reporting bias were judged to be low in 14 and 12 studies, respectively. Six studies compared laparoscopic PD catheter insertion with open surgical insertion. Five studies could be meta-analysed (394 participants). For our primary outcomes, data were either not reported in a format that could be meta-analysed (early PD catheter function, long-term catheter function) or not reported at all (technique failure). One death was reported in the laparoscopic group and none in the open surgical group. In low certainty evidence, laparoscopic PD catheter insertion may make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (4 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48; I² = 7%), PD catheter removal (4 studies, 257 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64; I² = 0%), and dialysate leakage (4 studies, 330 participants: RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.02; I² = 0%), but may reduce the risk of haemorrhage (2 studies, 167 participants: RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.31; I² = 33%) and catheter tip migration (4 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; I² = 12%). Four studies compared a medical insertion technique with open surgical insertion (276 participants). Technique failure was not reported, and no deaths were reported (2 studies, 64 participants). In low certainty evidence, medical insertion may make little or no difference to early PD catheter function (3 studies, 212 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.83; I² = 0%), while one study reported long-term PD function may improve with peritoneoscopic insertion (116 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.92). Peritoneoscopic catheter insertion may reduce the episodes of early peritonitis (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; I² = 0%) and dialysate leakage (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.71; I² = 0%). Medical insertion had uncertain effects on catheter tip migration (2 studies, 90 participants: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.73; I² = 0%). Most of the studies examined were small and of poor quality, increasing the risk of imprecision. There was also a significant risk of bias therefore cautious interpretation of results is advised.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available studies show that the evidence needed to guide clinicians in developing their PD catheter insertion service is lacking. No PD catheter insertion technique had lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction. High-quality, evidence-based data are urgently required, utilising multi-centre RCTs or large cohort studies, in order to provide definitive guidance relating to PD catheter insertion modality.

A Nationwide Comparative Analysis of Peritoneoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion in Brunei Darussalam

Key Points

Peritoneoscopic and laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter insertions are complementary to each other, and each has its niche in a successful peritoneal dialysis program. Future studies need to use standardized definitions to enable comparisons across jurisdictions, and this study is the first to do so.

Background

Brunei Darussalam introduced peritoneoscopic insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) as a new method in 2014. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of PDC insertion technique in the country, using proposed standardized definitions of outcomes.

Methods

This study used retrospective analysis of all PDCs inserted from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, in the country. Outcomes of both peritoneoscopic and laparoscopic insertion methods were analyzed. Four main categories of outcomes were assessed—(1 ) operative-related outcomes, (2 ) infective outcomes, (3 ) mechanical outcomes, and (4 ) time on peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy.

Results

During the study period, 145 PDCs were inserted: 49 (33.8%) were by peritoneoscopy and 96 (66.2%) by laparoscopy. The median time on PD therapy was 54.2 months. Those with a higher body mass index and history of previous abdominal or pelvic surgery were more likely to undergo laparoscopic method. There was no significant difference in overall infective and mechanical outcomes between the two methods. There was however significantly more postoperative pain observed in the peritoneoscopic group than in the laparoscopic group (8.2% versus 1.0%, P = 0.045). During the study period, there were 49 dropouts to hemodialysis, about half were due to infection. However, there was no statistically significant difference observed in time on PD therapy between the two groups (hazard ratio 0.87 in laparoscopic group compared with peritoneoscopic group, 95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 1.54; P =0.636).

Conclusions

Peritoneoscopic and laparoscopic PD catheter insertions are both complementary to each other in our local setting. This study has enabled us to scrutinize our PD program, regarding our PDC insertion experience, with the aim to sustain PD growth in the country.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters Insertion by Interventional Radiologists: A Single-Institution Experience

Purpose This article evaluates the short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters inserted by interventional radiology service and analyzes the factors that affect the sustainability of patent and functional PD catheters.

Patients and Methods Retrospective single-institution study between April 2015 and February 2021. A total of 131 patients (75 males) were enrolled with mean age of 50 ± 19.6 years with an average body mass index (BMI) of 28 ± 7 kg/m2. Technical and clinical success were evaluated. Catheter-related complications were classified into mechanical and nonmechanical categories, including infectious complications. Indications for removal were analyzed.

Results Technical and clinical success were 100%. The average dwelling time for the entire cohort was 497.5 ± 462.3 days. Forty-six patients (35%) were on PD at the last follow-up with an average dwelling time of 492 days. PD-related complications were reported in 79/131 (60.3%) patients, including peritonitis (40.46%; 53/131), followed by malposition/migration (12.21%; 16/131), tunnel/exit site infection (10.69%; 14/131), and dysfunction (12.21%; 16/131). The incidence of peritonitis within 30 days postinsertion was 9.43% (5/53). The average interval between insertion and migration was 100.5 ± 144.8 days (95% confidence interval, 6.9–14.4). There was a trend for a higher rate of malposition/migration in patients with higher BMI (p = 0.0561). Causes for PD catheters removal were: (1) infection-related (24.4%; 32/131), (2) renal transplant recipients (16%; 21/131), (3) mechanical complications (13.7%; 18/131), and (4) patient's preference (7.6%; 10/131).

Conclusion Percutaneous PD catheter placement by interventional radiologists provides acceptable long-term outcomes and complication rates that meet the recommended standards.

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.

Long‐term outcomes of peritoneal dialysis catheters inserted by laparoscopic and percutaneous techniques in a single regional dialysis centre

Background

Minimally invasive insertion of catheters for peritoneal dialysis can be performed laparoscopically or percutaneously under image guidance. In Geelong (Victoria, Australia) both methods are used. Our aim was to analyse the outcomes of all catheters inserted by both laparoscopic and percutaneous techniques and compare them against published studies from tertiary referral centres.

Methods

Data were collected retrospectively on all patients who had their catheter inserted (since 2006) within the Geelong regional service. We compared the outcomes of percutaneous catheter insertion under image guidance (percutaneous group, n = 29) with the laparoscopic catheter placement technique (laparoscopic group, n = 61). Perioperative, follow‐up and catheter outcome data were collected. There were no exclusion criteria. Analysis was performed using the unpaired student t‐test and chi‐squared test.

Results

Ninety catheters were inserted between 2006 and 2017 in mostly male patients (63%) with a mean age of 60 ± 0.4 years. The most common aetiology of chronic kidney disease was diabetic nephropathy (34%). Percutaneous insertion required less operative time, shorter hospital stay and earlier initiation of peritoneal dialysis. In the longer term, percutaneous catheters were more likely to migrate and laparoscopic catheters were more durable but more often associated with peritonitis. Thirty‐day complication rates did not differ between both groups. No Clavien‐Dindo grade 3 or 4 complication was reported.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters at our centre is performed safely and with patient outcomes comparable to published literature. Percutaneous insertion represents a safe and effective alternative based on the study findings.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement: Percutaneous and Peritoneoscopic Techniques

Chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized renal replacement therapy in treating end-stage renal disease that has several advantages over hemodialysis. The success of continuous ambulatory PD is largely dependent on a functional long-term access to the peritoneal cavity. Several methods have been developed to place the PD catheter using both surgical and percutaneous techniques. The purpose of this article is to describe the percutaneous techniques using fluoroscopy guidance and peritoneoscope method. While fluoroscopic method uses fluoroscopy guidance and a guidewire to place the PD catheter, the peritoneoscopic technique utilizes a needlescope to directly visualize the peritoneal space to avoid adhesions and omentum during catheter placement. These percutaneous approaches are minimally invasive procedures that can be performed on an outpatient basis without the need for general anesthesia.

Patient Selection and Planning for Image-Guided Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement

Image-guided percutaneous peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion has become increasingly relied upon to provide urgent access for late presenting kidney failure patients, to overcome surgical backlogs and limited operating room access, to avoid general anesthesia in high-risk patients, and, by itself, as an alternative approach to surgical PD access. Advanced planning for the procedure is essential to assure the best possible outcome. Appropriate selection of patients for percutaneous PD catheter placement, choosing the most suitable catheter type, determining insertion and exit site locations, and final patient preparations facilitate the performance of the procedure, minimizes the risk of complications, and improves the likelihood of providing a successful long-term peritoneal access.

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters by the nephrologist (modified Seldinger technique)

A proper functioning access to the peritoneal cavity is the first and foremost requirement to start peritoneal dialysis. Most commonly, peritoneal dialysis catheters are inserted using a surgical approach. Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion is the recommended surgical technique because it offers to employ advanced adjunctive procedures that minimize the risk of mechanical complications. In patients with low risk of mechanical catheter complications, such as patients without prior history of abdominal surgery or peritonitis, and in patients ineligible for general anesthesia, the percutaneous approach of peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion is an alternative to surgical catheter insertion. Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters can be performed by a dedicated nephrologist, interventional radiologist, surgeon or nurse practitioner under local anesthesia, either with or without image guidance using ultrasound or fluoroscopy. Several reports show similar catheter function rates, mechanical and infectious complications and catheter survival for percutaneously inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters compared to surgically inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters. This article describes the percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters technique adopted at Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel since 2015. Our technique is a simple low-tech modified Seldinger procedure performed by the nephrologist and not using fluoroscopy guidance. We describe the excellent outcomes of our percutaneously inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters and offer a practical guide to set up your own percutaneous catheter insertion program.

The "Half-Perc" technique using a simple modified metal trocar for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: results of a 3-year follow-up of 280 patients and a literature review

PURPOSE

There is an ongoing debate about the ideal technique for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A half-percutaneous ("Half-Perc") technique shares some of the advantages of both percutaneous technique and traditional open surgery. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility, safety, and effects of the "Half-Perc" technique for PD catheter placement, and to compare the clinical outcomes of the "Half-Perc" technique with various imaging-assisted percutaneous techniques from the current literature.

METHODS

We included 280 consecutive patients with ESRD who underwent the "Half-Perc" insertion of the first PD catheter between September 2016 and September 2019. We recorded baseline characteristics, operative parameters, catheter-related complications, catheter survival, and the reason behind PD cessation.

RESULTS

We included 174 men and 106 women, with a mean age of 50.4 years (range, 11-85 years). The mean operative time was 28.8 min (range, 15-38 min) and technical success rate was observed in 278 patients (99.3%). There were 28 episodes (10%) of mechanical complications with initial catheters occurring during the follow-up. Catheter malfunctions were the most common mechanical complication and were observed in 15 patients. Peritonitis was the most frequent catheter-related complication, with 32 episodes of peritonitis observed in 29 (10.4%) patients. After a mean follow-up period of 15.4 months (range, 2-36 months), 235 patients (83.9%) survived with their initial PD catheter by the end of the study. Of the 280 patients analyzed, 35 patients (12.5%) ceased PD at some stage during follow-up. The most common reason for PD cessation was kidney transplantation (18 patients (6.4%)), followed by death (9 patients (3.2%)) and switch to hemodialysis (HD) (7 patients (2.5%)), and recovery of renal failure (1 patient (0.4%)).

CONCLUSION

The "Half-Perc" technique, including a modified metal trocar, is a simple, safe, and effective method for PD catheter placement that can be used for patients with ESRD.

Percutaneous Versus Surgical Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background:

Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.

Objective:

To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.

Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting:

We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.

Patients:

Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.

Measurements:

We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.

Methods:

Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ² test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results:

Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I² = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I² = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.

Limitations:

Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).

Conclusions:

Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.

Risk Factors and Management of Catheter Malfunction During Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis

Background: Catheter malfunction is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the risk factors and management of catheter malfunction in urgent-start PD.

Methods: Patients who underwent urgent-start PD were divided into catheter-malfunction and control groups. Baseline demographic and laboratory data of the two groups were compared, and the risk factors for catheter malfunction were analyzed. Primary outcome measure was catheter survival, and the secondary outcomes were surgical complications and malfunction treatment.

Results: Total of 700 patients was analyzed, among whom 143 (20.4%) experienced catheter malfunctions, specifically catheter migration (96, 67.1%), omental wrapping (36, 25.2%), and migration plus omental wrapping (11, 7.7%). Catheter survival time in the malfunction group (202.5 ± 479.4 days) was significantly shorter than that in the control group (1295.3 ± 637.0 days) (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed higher body mass index [hazard ratio (HR), 1.061; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.010–1.115; P = 0.018], lower surgeon count (HR, 1.083; 95% CI, 1.032–1.136; P = 0.001), and higher serum potassium (HR, 1.231; 95% CI, 1.041–1.494; P = 0.036) as independent risk factors for catheter malfunction, while older age (HR, 0.976, 95% CI, 0.962–0.991; P = 0.002) and colonic dialysis (HR, 0.384; 95% CI, 0.254–0.581; P < 0.001) as protective factors. Further subgroup analysis revealed a shorter catheter survival time in patients with younger age ( ≤ 40 years), higher serum potassium levels (≥5 mmol/L), while a longer catheter survival time in patients with colonic dialysis. PD tube and subcutaneous tunnel preservation was successful in 41 out of 44 patients with omental wrapping. All patients had good post-incision prognoses.

Conclusions: Urgent-start PD is safe and effective for unplanned PD patients. Adequate pre-operative colonic dialysis and serum potassium level control are conducive in preventing catheter malfunction. Conservative treatment is effective in managing catheter migration alone, while preservation of the PD tube and the subcutaneous tunnel is effective for omental wrapping.

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.

Combined fluoroscopic- and sonographic-assisted Tenckhoff catheter insertion for patients with previous intraperitoneal surgery

BACKGROUND

Tenckhoff catheter (TC) insertion for patients with previous intraperitoneal surgery (IPS) is challenging.

METHODS

This is a case series of 11 patients with history of previous IPS who underwent TC insertion under combined fluoroscopic and sonographic (CFS) guidance with preperitoneal tunneling at our center.

RESULTS

This is an interim result of our study. The mean age of the patients was 49.1 (±12.7). Seven were females, and four were males. Only two patients underwent more than one IPS prior to this procedure. The mean body mass index (BMI) of patients was 29.2 kg/m² (±6.2). All patients underwent the procedure successfully. One patient developed post-procedure exit site bleeding which resolved spontaneously. One patient had urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) (less than 72 h), and two patients had early-start PD (less than 2 weeks). Median catheter survival is 8 months at the time of writing.

CONCLUSION

CFS-assisted TC insertion with preperitoneal tunneling for patients with previous IPS is a safe and effective technique.

Surgical versus percutaneous catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No consensus currently exists regarding the optimal approach for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. We aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous and surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (end-of-search date: August 29th, 2020). We included studies comparing percutaneous (blind, under fluoroscopic/ultrasound guidance, and "half-perc") and surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement (open and laparoscopic) in terms of their infectious complications (peritonitis, tunnel/exit-site infections), mechanical complications (leakage, inflow/outflow obstruction, migration, hemorrhage, hernia, bowel perforation) and long-term outcomes (malfunction, removal, replacement, surgery required, and mortality).

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were identified, including thirty-two observational studies (twenty-six retrospective and six prospective) and two randomized controlled trials. Percutaneous placement was associated with significantly lower rates of tunnel/exit-site infection [relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91], catheter migration (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49, 0.95), and catheter removal (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88). The 2-week and 4-week rates of early tunnel/exit-site infection were also lower in the percutaneous group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.93 and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed regarding other outcomes, including catheter survival and mechanical complications.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the quality of published literature on the field of peritoneal dialysis catheter placement is poor, with a small percentage of studies being randomized clinical trials. Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter placement is a safe procedure and may result in fewer complications, such as tunnel/exit-site infections, and catheter migration, compared to surgical placement.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020154951.

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter-related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.

Peritoneal dialysis access outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Functional peritoneal dialysis (PD) access is critical to the success of PD therapy. The aim of this review is to describe the spectrum of definitions and methods employed in the measurement of unique outcomes across PD access trials particularly focusing on the outcomes of PD access flow restriction and operative-related outcomes.

METHODS

Using Cochrane CENTRAL registry, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, we searched for studies restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions related to PD access without restrictions on age, language, or publication year. Studies were screened and data abstracted by two independent reviewers. Definitions, outcome measures, and time points of measurements were captured and documented separately. Unique combinations of these variables resulted in reporting the different ways of measurements.

RESULTS

Of the 1768 screened studies, 47 RCTs were included among which 817 PD access outcomes were grouped into 7 broad categories. Interventions evaluated in the RCTs were catheter type/configuration (n = 17), insertion technique (n = 15), multiple interventions (n = 3), and other (6 interventions, n = 12). PD access flow restriction (a subcategory of mechanical outcomes) and operative-related outcomes were reported in 91% and 58% of the included trials, respectively. Tip migration was the most frequently reported flow restriction outcome (59% of RCTs) followed by catheter dysfunction (23% of RCTs). Of the components utilized in definition of flow restriction, description of the impaired flow was reported in 37% of RCTs, need for intervention in 42% of RCTs, and presumed etiology of flow restriction in 60% of RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Variability exists in the definitions, reporting methods, choice of outcomes, and analysis of the PD access outcomes across RCTs. Operative-related outcomes remain underreported across RCTs. Outcomes relating to PD access flow restriction were the most common complications reported in the included RCTs but were reported heterogeneously with variability in reporting of the three key components of its definition including description and severity of the flow restriction, the need for intervention and etiology of flow restriction. In the future, defining PD access flow restriction should include all of these components to better evaluate the comparative effect of various PD access interventions.

Different techniques for peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients' anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However, the research comparing of all the existing PDC techniques is lacking. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of PDC techniques by network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. NMA was used to estimate the ranking for endpoints. Our NMA included 41 studies (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 32 observational trials) and enrolled 3902 patients, comparing three techniques: the laparoscopic catheterization (LC), open surgery catheterization (OSC), and percutaneous catheterization (PC). NMA in RCTs showed OSC had the highest incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunction, PC and LC were very similar, but this result had no statistical difference. NMA in observational studies showed that LC had the highest 1-year catheter survival but without statistical difference (LC vs. OSC: odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 0.90-3.40; PC vs. OSC: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 0.80-2.97; PC vs. LC: OR 0.88, 95% CrIs 0.54-1.44). OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. The complications of leakage, peritonitis, and exit/tunnel infection were inconclusive due to the inconsistent results between RCTs and observational studies. Our NMA revealed LC may have the best 1-year catheter survival. PC and LC might be efficacious in lowering the mechanical dysfunction. OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. More RCTs with larger scale and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.

Comparison of peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion techniques by nephrologists: Surgical vs blind methods

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to perform a comparative analysis of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion between blind and surgical methods by nephrologists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The present study enrolled 249 peritoneal dialysis patients who received first-time PDC insertion. All PDC insertions were performed using either the blind or surgical method. In our hospital during the study period, two of three nephrologists performed the blind method routinely in all eligible patients (blind group), and one of three nephrologists performed the surgical method in all eligible patients (surgical group). Catheter outcomes, including infectious or mechanical complications, functional parameters, and catheter survival, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The numbers of patients underwent surgical or blind methods were 105 and 144, respectively. The use of systemic analgesics in the surgical group was higher than that in the blind group. The operation time was longer in the blind group than in the surgical group. The D0 level and peritoneal Kt/V were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in infectious and mechanical complications between the two groups. The catheter survival and intervention-free survival were similar between the two groups (P = .995 for catheter survival and P = .723 for intervention-free survival).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that catheter outcomes are similar between blind and surgical insertion techniques performed by nephrologists. These findings reveal that patients without previous major abdominal surgery would be suitable to receive any one of the two methods according to the operator-friendly technique.

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheter is a safe and effective technique irrespective of BMI

BACKGROUND

A large body mass index (BMI) has been considered as a relative contraindication for percutaneous catheter insertion, although this technique has many advantages. Up to now, there are few studies on peritoneal catheter placement and obesity. The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with large BMI can also choose the percutaneous technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion.

METHODS

One hundred eighty seven consecutive patients underwent peritoneal catheter insertions in the Chinese PLA General Hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016, with 178 eligible cases being included in the analysis. Two groups were created based on the catheter insertion techniques, the percutaneous group (group P) and the surgical group (group S). Subgroups were created according to BMI > 28 or ≤ 28. The outcomes included catheter related complications and catheter survival.

RESULTS

Total infectious complication rates were significantly lower in group P than in group S. There were no significant differences in peritonitis rate between group P and group S (1.20% vs. 3.16% with P = 0.71 in early stage, and 4.82% vs. 11.58% with P = 0.11 in late stage). All other measured complications were similar between the two groups. Though the one-year infection-free catheter survival in group P was 7.5% higher than group S, the difference was not significant. The one-year dysfunction-free catheter survival, one-year dysfunction-and-infection-free catheter survival, and overall catheter survival were similar between the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed a superior one-year infection-free catheter survival of percutaneous technique in patients with BMI > 28, which was confirmed by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenges that may be encountered with patients who have a large BMI, the percutaneous technique seems to be a safe and effective approach to placing a peritoneal dialysis catheter.

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.

Quantifying the risk of insertion-related peritoneal dialysis catheter complications following laparoscopic placement: Results from the North American PD Catheter Registry

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a more cost-effective therapy to treat kidney failure than in-center hemodialysis, but successful therapy requires a functioning PD catheter that causes minimal complications. In 2015, the North American Chapter of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis established the North American PD Catheter Registry to improve practices and patient outcomes following PD catheter insertion.

AIMS

The objective of this study is to propose a methodology for defining insertion-related complications that lead to significant adverse events and report the risk of these complications among patients undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion were enrolled at 14 participating centers in Canada and the United States and followed using a Web-based registry. Insertion-related complications were defined as flow restriction, exit-site leak, or abdominal pain at any point during follow-up. We also included infections or bleeding within 30 days of insertion, and any immediate postoperative complications. Adverse events were categorized as PD never starting or termination of PD therapy, delay in the start of PD therapy or interruption of PD therapy, an emergency department visit or hospitalization, or need for invasive procedures. Cause-specific cumulative incidence functions were used to estimate risk.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients underwent laparoscopic PD catheter insertion between 10 November 2015 and 24 July 2018. The cumulative risk of insertion-related complications 6 months from the date of insertion that led to an adverse event was 24%. The risk of flow restriction, exit-site leak, and pain at 6 months was 10.2%, 5.7%, and 5.3%, respectively. PD was never started or terminated in 6.4% of patients due to an insertion-related complication. Leaks and flow restrictions were most likely to delay or interrupt PD therapy. Flow restrictions were the primary cause of invasive procedures. Fifty percent of the complications occurred before the start of PD therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Insertion-related complications leading to significant adverse events following laparoscopic placement of PD catheters are common. Many complications occur before the start of PD. Insertion-related complications are an important area of focus for future research and quality improvement efforts.

Ultrasound in dialysis access: Opportunities and challenges

Sonography is increasingly being used by nephrologists and the field of dialysis access is no exception. Advances in technology have allowed the addition of this universally available, portable, non-invasive tool to the nephrologist's armamentarium, which provides information on both morphology and physiology without the need for contrast or radiation. Ultrasound may be used across the spectrum of dialysis access, including central venous catheter placements, vascular mapping, regional anesthesia, creation, maintenance and assessment of hemodialysis access as well as assessment of the abdominal wall and peritoneal dialysis catheter placements. However, the lack of exposure in most training programs limits incorporation of routine use of ultrasounds in nephrology practice. As our specialty embarks on the ultrasound revolution, a two-pronged approach is essential to provide ample training opportunities while ensuring establishment of basic standards for training and competency.

Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is one of the limiting factors for the growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) worldwide and is a major cause of technique failure. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of various catheter-related interventions for lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of different catheter implantation techniques and catheter types in lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis in PD patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 15 January 2019 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing different catheter insertion techniques, catheter types, use of immobilisation techniques and different break-in periods were included. Studies of different PD sets were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies (3144 participants) were included: 18 evaluated techniques of catheter implantation, 22 examined catheter types, one assessed an immobiliser device, and one examined break-in period. In general, study quality was variable and almost all aspects of study design did not fulfil CONSORT standards for reporting.Catheter insertion by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.35; moderate certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.31; low certainty evidence), catheter removal/replacement (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; low certainty evidence), technique failure (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.08; low certainty evidence), and death (all causes) (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.20; moderate certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcutaneous burying of catheter increases peritonitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.60; very low certainty evidence). Midline insertion compared to lateral insertion probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.33; moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). Percutaneous insertion compared with open surgery probably makes little or no difference to the exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.30; moderate certainty evidence).Straight catheters probably make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence), peritonitis rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence), risk of exit-site infection (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34; moderate certainty evidence), and exit-site infection rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; moderate certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. It is uncertain whether straight catheters prevent catheter removal or replacement (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.66; very low certainty evidence) but straight catheters probably make little or no difference to technique failure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence) and death (all causes) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46; low certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at subcutaneous tract compared with swan-neck catheter may make little or no difference to peritonitis (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.96; low certainty evidence) and incidence of exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) but may slightly improve exit-site infection rate (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence that any catheter-related intervention, including the use of different catheter types or different insertion techniques, reduces the risks of PD peritonitis or other PD-related infections, technique failure or death (all causes). However, the numbers and sizes of studies were generally small and the methodological quality of available studies was suboptimal, such that the possibility that a particular catheter-related intervention might have a beneficial effect cannot be completely ruled out with confidence.

A Peritoneal Dialysis Access Quality Improvement Initiative: A Single-Center Experience

Background:Little evidence exists regarding optimal peritoneal dialysis (PD) access insertion pathways, benchmarking for patency targets, and definitions of access dysfunction.Methods:This quality improvement (QI) project evaluated patients with PD catheters inserted at a single center in Toronto, Canada, following: establishment of PD catheter insertion protocols, a PD access coordinator, PD access operator training, and outcomes reporting. We define primary vs secondary PD catheter dysfunction by presentation before/after initial home PD treatment. We report catheter dysfunction rates, interventions restoring PD catheter patency (interventional radiology [IR] vs advanced laparoscopic [AL]) (embedded vs non-embedded) between 2012 and 2017.Results:A total of 297 first PD catheters were inserted between January 2012 and December 2017. Interventional radiology PD catheters (n = 94) were placed in older patients with greater comorbidities and less prior abdominal surgery than AL-placed catheters. Indications for IR insertion included need for urgent dialysis given resource availability (36.2% [n = 34]) and prohibitive surgical risk (26.6% [n = 25]). Interventional radiology-inserted catheters had overall (primary and secondary) dysfunction rates of 17%. Non-embedded AL catheters had 16.1% overall dysfunction. Embedded AL-inserted PD catheters had a 24.6% overall dysfunction rate. Among all dysfunctional catheters, IR manipulation was successful in 31% (n = 11), and surgical revision was necessary in all unsuccessful cases with either lysis of adhesions or omentopexy to establish patency.Conclusion:Our PD catheter QI initiative involved tracking, outcome reporting, defining PD catheter dysfunction and PD access insertion pathway development, yielding important insights into opportunities for program improvement. Multicenter research initiatives are needed to further improve PD access dysfunction definitions and to establish the best benchmarks for these metrics.

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis: Multinational Nominal Group Technique Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The absence of accepted patient-centered outcomes in research can limit shared decision-making in peritoneal dialysis (PD), particularly because PD-related treatments can be associated with mortality, technique failure, and complications that can impair quality of life. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in PD, and to describe the reasons for their choices.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Patients on PD and their caregivers were purposively sampled from nine dialysis units across Australia, the United States, and Hong Kong. Using nominal group technique, participants identified and ranked outcomes, and discussed the reasons for their choices. An importance score (scale 0-1) was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Across 14 groups, 126 participants (81 patients, 45 caregivers), aged 18-84 (mean 54, SD 15) years, identified 56 outcomes. The ten highest ranked outcomes were PD infection (importance score, 0.27), mortality (0.25), fatigue (0.25), flexibility with time (0.18), BP (0.17), PD failure (0.16), ability to travel (0.15), sleep (0.14), ability to work (0.14), and effect on family (0.12). Mortality was ranked first in Australia, second in Hong Kong, and 15th in the United States. The five themes were serious and cascading consequences on health, current and impending relevance, maintaining role and social functioning, requiring constant vigilance, and beyond control and responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients on PD and their caregivers, PD-related infection, mortality, and fatigue were of highest priority, and were focused on health, maintaining lifestyle, and self-management. Reporting these patient-centered outcomes may enhance the relevance of research to inform shared decision-making.

Peritoneal Dialysis in Austere Environments: An Emergent Approach to Renal Failure Management

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a means of renal replacement therapy (RRT) that can be performed in remote settings with limited resources, including regions that lack electrical power. PD is a mainstay of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) therapy worldwide, and the ease of initiation and maintenance has enabled it to flourish in both resource-limited and resource-abundant settings. In natural disaster scenarios, military conflicts, and other austere areas, PD may be the only available life-saving measure for acute kidney injury (AKI) or ESRD. PD in austere environments is not without challenges, including catheter placement, availability of dialysate, and medical complications related to the procedure itself. However, when hemodialysis is unavailable, PD can be performed using generally available medical supplies including sterile tubing and intravenous fluids. Amidst the ever-increasing global burden of ESRD and AKI, the ability to perform PD is essential for many medical facilities.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion

The success of peritoneal dialysis as renal-replacement therapy depends on a well-functioning peritoneal catheter. Knowledge of best practices in catheter insertion can minimize the risk of catheter complications that lead to peritoneal dialysis failure. The catheter placement procedure begins with preoperative assessment of the patient to determine the most appropriate catheter type, insertion site, and exit site location. Preoperative preparation of the patient is an instrumental step in facilitating the performance of the procedure, avoiding untoward events, and promoting the desired outcome. Catheter insertion methods include percutaneous needle-guidewire with or without image guidance, open surgical dissection, peritoneoscopic procedure, and surgical laparoscopy. The insertion technique used often depends on the geographic availability of material resources and local provider expertise in placing catheters. Independent of the catheter implantation approach, adherence to a number of universal details is required to ensure the best opportunity for creating a successful long-term peritoneal access. Finally, appropriate postoperative care and catheter break-in enables a smooth transition to dialysis therapy.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion by Surgical Minilaparotomy: Outcome Analysis between Nephrologist and Surgeon

Surgical minilaparotomy technique of Tenckhoff catheter placement is rarely practiced by nephrologists. There is a scarcity of data comparing technique and outcomes of surgically inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters by surgeon and nephrologist. We retrospectively analyzed 105 Tenckhoff catheters inserted by surgical minilaparotomy ("S" [surgeon], n = 43 and "N" [nephrologist], n = 62) in end-stage renal disease. Comparative analysis of surgical technique, survivals, and complications between both groups was done. "N" group observed two major advantages; shorter break-in (P < 001) and early continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis rehabilitation. Cumulative catheter experience was 1749 catheter-months: 745 and 1004 catheter-months in "S" and "N" groups, respectively. "N" group had a better overall catheter and patient survival, and a statistically insignificant mechanical complications, seen mostly in obese and post-abdominal surgery patients, without fatality or catheter loss. Peritonitis rates (P = 0.21) and catheter removal due to refractory peritonitis (P = 0.81) were comparable. The technique used is practical and aids early break-in, yields better results, and later on, helps in easy and uncomplicated PDC removal as and when indicated. Mechanical complications, mostly bleeding, were managed conservatively without any catheter or patient loss. This method should be encouraged among nephrologists and nephrology residents.

Outcomes of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided placement versus laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters

Background

Several peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement techniques have been described. The objective of this study was to compare the fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance technique with the laparoscopic technique.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who had their first PDC placed between January 2005 and June 2016. We compared the outcomes of the fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided catheter placement technique (radiologic group, n = 50) with the laparoscopic catheter placement technique (laparoscopic group, n = 190). The primary endpoint was complication-free catheter survival at 365 days. Secondary endpoints were complication-free catheter survival at 90 days, overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days, median days to first complication and median days to catheter removal.

Results

In the radiologic group, the complication-free catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 64% and 48%, respectively, while in the laparoscopic group it was 71% (P = 0.374) and 53% (P = 0.494), respectively. Catheter malfunction was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (30%) compared with the radiologic group (16%, P = 0.048). The overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 76% and 52%, respectively, in the radiologic group, while in the laparoscopic group it was 88% (P = 0.0514) an 48% (P = 0.652), respectively. There was no significant difference in the median days to first complication and the median days to catheter removal between the two groups (P = 0.71).

Conclusion

The technique of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided PDC placement is a clinically effective and safe alternative to laparoscopic catheter placement with similar survival and complication rates.

Radiological Tenckhoff catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis: A cost-effective approach

INTRODUCTION

Radiological insertion of Tenckhoff catheters can be an alternative option for peritoneal dialysis access creation, as compared to surgical catheter insertion. This study will review the outcomes and complications of radiological Tenckhoff catheter insertion in a metropolitan renal service and compare costs between surgical and radiological insertion.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively for all patients who had a Tenckhoff catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis (PD) under radiological guidance at our hospital from May 2014 to November 2016. The type of catheter used and complications, including peri-catheter leak, exit site infection and peritonitis were reviewed. Follow-up data were also collected at points 3, 6 and 12 months from catheter insertion. Costing data were obtained from Queensland Health Electronic Reporting System (QHERS) data, average staff salaries and consumable contract price lists.

RESULTS

In the 30-month evaluation period, 70 catheters were inserted. Two patients had an unsuccessful procedure due to the presence of abdominal adhesions. Seven patients had an episode of peri-catheter leak, and four patients had an exit site infection following catheter insertion. Peritonitis was observed in nine patients during the study period. The majority of patients (90%) remained on peritoneal dialysis at 3-month follow-up. The average costs of surgical and radiological insertion were noted to be AUD$7788.34 and AUD$1597.35, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Radiological Tenckhoff catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis appears to be an attractive and cost-effective option given less waiting periods for the procedure, the relatively low cost of insertion and comparable rates of complications.