Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Survival, cumulative hospital days and infectious complications in urgent-start PD compared with urgent-start HD

BACKGROUND

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) carries a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to urgent-start haemodialysis (HD) but is only sparsely applied due to resource issues and concerns of complication risks. Furthermore, few data exist on adverse outcomes associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertions in urgent-start HD patients. Thus, we sought to compare patient and dialysis-related outcomes in patients undergoing urgent-start PD or HD.

METHODS

All patients initiating urgent-start PD in a tertiary research hospital in 2005-2018 were included in this retrospective, single-centre, comparative study and matched with urgent-start HD patients of similar age and chronic kidney disease aetiology. All urgent-start PDs were initiated within 72 h after catheter insertion, and urgent-start HDs were performed via a CVC. All analyses were performed at 3 months and at 1 year of follow-up, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients who commenced urgent-start PD and 58 matched urgent-start HD control patients were included. Altogether, 26 patients (29%; PD: 36%, HD 24%) died within the 1-year follow-up, and patient survival was similar at 3 months (hazard ratio (HR): 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-3.81, p = 0.82) and at 1 year of follow-up (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.30-1.39, p = 0.26) between the study groups. There were no differences in the total kidney replacement therapy (KRT)-related infection rate (p = 0.66) or cumulative first-year hospital care days (p = 0.43) between the treatment groups. Altogether, 139 CVCs were inserted during the 1-year follow-up. The number of CVCs per patient was associated with the emergence of blood culture-positive bacteraemia and increased cumulative first-year hospital care days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient survival, cumulative first-year hospital care days and total KRT-related infection rate at 3 months and 1-year follow-up are similar between urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD patients. Furthermore, CVC insertion rate is associated with incident blood culture-positive bacteraemia and increased cumulative first-year hospital care days.

Exploring kidney dialysis costs in the United States: a scoping review

AIMS

The increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States (US) represents a considerable economic burden due to the high cost of dialysis treatment. This review examines data from real-world studies to identify cost drivers and explore areas where dialysis costs could be reduced.

METHODS

We identified and synthesized evidence published from 2016-2023 reporting direct dialysis costs in adult US patients from a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature sources (e.g. US Renal Data System reports).

RESULTS

Most identified data related to Medicare expenditures. Overall Medicare spending in 2020 was $29B for hemodialysis and $2.8B for peritoneal dialysis (PD). Dialysis costs accounted for almost 80% of total Medicare expenditures on ESRD beneficiaries. Private insurance payers consistently pay more for dialysis; for example, per person per month spending by private insurers on outpatient dialysis was estimated at $10,149 compared with Medicare spending of $3,364. Dialysis costs were higher in specific high-risk patient groups (e.g. type 2 diabetes, hepatitis C). Spending on hemodialysis was higher than on PD, but the gap in spending between PD and hemodialysis is closing. Vascular access costs accounted for a substantial proportion of dialysis costs.

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient detail in the identified studies, especially related to outpatient costs, limits opportunities to identify key drivers. Differences between the studies in methods of measuring dialysis costs make generalization of these results difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that prevention of or delay in progression to ESRD could have considerable cost savings for Medicare and private payers, particularly in patients with high-risk conditions such as type 2 diabetes. More efficient use of resources is needed, including low-cost medication, to improve clinical outcomes and lower overall costs, especially in high-risk groups. Widening access to PD where it is safe and appropriate may help to reduce dialysis costs.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis in Critically Ill Patients: Time for a Critical Reevaluation?

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) as an AKI treatment in adults was widely accepted in critical care settings well into the 1980s. The advent of extracorporeal continuous KRT led to widespread decline in the use of PD for AKI across high-income countries. The lack of familiarity and comfort with the use of PD in critical care settings has also led to lack of use even among those receiving maintenance PD. Many critical care units reflexively convert patients receiving maintenance PD to alternative dialysis therapies at admission. Renewed interest in the use of PD for AKI therapy has emerged due to its increasing use in low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countries, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, saw PD for AKI used early on, where many critical care units were in crisis and relied on PD use when resources for other AKI therapy modalities were limited. In this review, we highlight advantages and disadvantages of PD in critical care settings and indications and contraindications for its use. We provide an overview of literature to support both PD treatment during AKI and its continuation as a maintenance therapy during critical illness. For AKI therapy, we further discuss establishment of PD access, PD prescription management, and complication monitoring and treatment. Finally, we discuss expansion in the use of PD for AKI therapy extending beyond its role during times of resource constraints.

Comparison of hospitalization cause and risk factors between patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

This retrospective study was designed to compare the cause of hospitalization and influencing factors between patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Baseline data and laboratory parameters of 192 dialysis patients (92 HD patients and 100 PD patients) were compared. Quantitative parameters with normal distribution were assessed using independent t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA). Quantitative parameters with non-normal distribution were assessed by non-parametric test. Qualitative data were statistically compared using χ2 test. The number of patients with urban employee medical insurance (88 HD patients and 60 PD patients) and rural cooperative medical care (12 HD patients and 40 PD patients) significantly differed (P < .01). The hospitalization rate of PD patients was significantly higher than that of HD counterparts. The average length of hospital stay of PD patients was 10 days, remarkably longer than 8 days of HD patients (P < .01). The primary cause of hospitalization for HD patients was infection-related complications, followed by cardiovascular, cerebrovascular complications and dialysis access disorders. The primary cause of hospitalization for PD patients was infection-related complications, followed by dialysis access disorders, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal complications. Compared with the HD group, the levels of hemoglobin, serum albumin, alkaline phosphatase, intact parathyroid hormone were significantly decreased, whereas serum urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, phosphorus levels and cardiothoracic ratio were remarkably increased in the PD group (all P < .01). The hospitalization rate of PD patients is relatively higher, and the length of hospital stay is longer. Extensive attention and efforts should be delivered to enhance the understanding of disease and lower the risk of complications for patients.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: Association with outcomes

The majority of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients start dialysis without adequate pre-dialysis planning. Of these patients, the vast majority initiate in-centre haemodialysis using a central venous catheter (ICHD-CVC). A minority utilise urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD), whereby a peritoneal dialysis catheter is placed and used for dialysis without the usual 2-4-week waiting period. In this multicentre, retrospective study of adult patients initiating dialysis during 2018, we compared outcomes among patients utilising these two dialysis initiation routes. Patients who initiated dialysis via ICHD-CVC were matched 1:1 to patients who utilised USPD on the basis of aetiology of ESKD, race, diabetes status and insurance type. Hospitalisation and mortality were evaluated from dialysis initiation through the first of death, transplant, loss to follow-up or study end (30 June 2019). Outcomes were compared using models adjusted for age and sex. A total of 717 USPD patients were matched to ICHD-CVC patients. During follow-up, USPD patients were hospitalised at a rate of 1.21 admissions/patient-year (pt-yr) versus 1.51 admissions/pt-yr for ICHD-CVC. This corresponded to a 24% lower rate of hospitalisation among USPD patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.88). Mortality rates were 0.08 and 0.11 deaths/pt-yr among USPD patients and ICHD-CVC patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.62, 1.15). These findings suggest that more widespread adoption of USPD may be beneficial among patients with limited pre-dialysis planning.

Urgent Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Population-Based Cohort Study,

Rationale & Objective

It is a common practice to start patients in urgent need of dialysis on hemodialysis via a central venous catheter. Because central venous catheter use is associated with increased risk of infections, hospitalizations, and mortality, urgent start peritoneal dialysis (PD) increasingly represents a viable alternative. This study aimed to examine clinical outcomes, complications, mortality, and modality retention in patients who initiated urgent start PD.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting and Participants

Eighty-four adult members of a large integrated health care system who initiated urgent start PD between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014.

Exposure

Urgent start PD.

Outcomes

Retention rates at 30, 90, and 365 days; time to the development of noninfectious and infectious complications, modality failure, and all-cause mortality.

Analytical Approach

Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Retention rates for PD were computed using binomial proportions.

Results

Occurrence of major complications was less than 5%. Catheter malfunction occurred in 6% of cases; of those, catheter patency could be established in 80%. Infectious complications occurred in 20% of patients who initiated PD and included peritonitis and exit site infections. At 365 days after initiation, the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 9.7% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.4%). PD retention rates were 98.8%, 91.3%, and 80.0% at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year, respectively.

Limitations

Retrospective cohort design, a well-matched comparable group of urgent start hemodialysis patients could not be identified, small number of patients in a single integrated health care system, uncertain or limited generalizability of findings to other health care systems.

Conclusions

At 1 year after initiation, patients who initiated urgent start PD had high survival and modality retention rates. In unplanned initiation of dialysis, urgent start PD is a viable and sustainable option and should be considered in selected patients to optimize care.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal disease patients: literature review and worldwide evidence-based practice

The prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is on the rise worldwide. Meanwhile, the number of older people requiring dialysis therapy is increasing as a result of this population. We found that starting dialysis in an unplanned manner is a common occurrence, even for patients with nephrology follow-up. Most centers choose hemodialysis with a high rate of central venous catheter use at the time of initiation of dialysis. Current data has found that central venous catheter use is independently associated with increased mortality and high bacteremia rates. Peritoneal dialysis is one option to avoid bacteremia. The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guidelines suggests a break-in period of at least two weeks prior to an elective start of peritoneal dialysis, without mentioning urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. For unplanned ESRD patients, it is unrealistic to wait for two weeks before initiating peritoneal dialysis therapy. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis has been suggested to be a practical approach of prompt initiation of peritoneal dialysis after catheter insertion, which may avoid an increased risk of central venous catheter-related complications, including bacteremia, central venous stenosis, and thrombosis associated with the temporary use of hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis is the alternative option, and many studies have presented an interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. Some reports have compared urgent-start hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis and found that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis is a safe and effective alternative to hemodialysis for an unplanned dialysis patient. This review aims to compare each literature report regarding techniques, prescriptions, outcomes, complications, and costs of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.

Choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis: results of the Peridialysis study

Background

In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI).

Methods

The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered.

Results

Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a ‘home dialysis first’ institutional policy.

Conclusions

Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.

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.

Payer budget impact of an artificial intelligence in vitro diagnostic to modify diabetic kidney disease progression

AIM

To evaluate the U.S. payer budget-impact of KidneyIntelX, an artificial intelligence-enabled in vitro diagnostic to predict kidney function decline in Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease (T2DKD) patients, stages 1-3b.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed an Excel-based model according to International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) good practices to assess U.S. payer budget impact associated with the use of the KidneyIntelX test to optimize therapy T2DKD patients compared to standard of care (SOC) (without KidneyIntelX). A hypothetical cohort of 100,000 stages 1-3b T2DKD patients was followed for 5 years. Peer-reviewed publications were used to identify model parameter estimates. KidneyIntelX costs incremental to SOC (without KidneyIntelX) included test cost, additional prescription medication use, specialist referrals and PCP office visits. Patients managed with KidneyIntelX experienced a 20% slowed progression rate compared to SOC (without KidneyIntelX) attributed to slowed DKD progression, delayed or prevented dialysis and transplants, and reduced dialysis crashes. Associated costs were compared to SOC (without KidneyIntelX). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying the definition of progression and the DKD progression rate associated with KidneyIntelX testing and related interventions.

RESULTS

Projected undiscounted base case 5-year savings for 100,000 patients tested with KidneyIntelX were $1.052 billion, attributed mostly to slowed progression through DKD stages. The breakeven point for the health plan adopting KidneyIntelX is expected to occur prior to year 2 after adoption. Sensitivity analysis based on the assessment of the most conservative definition of progression and a 5% reduction in progression rate attributed to KidneyIntelX, resulted in a projected 5-year savings of $145 million associated with KidneyIntelX.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations included reliance on literature-based parameter estimates, including effect size of delayed progression supported by the literature. Incorporating KidneyIntelX in contemporary care of early-stage T2DKD patients is projected to result in substantial savings to payers.

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.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Bedside Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement in the COVID-19 Era: Initial Experience at a New York City Hospital

Introduction

Acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) is common in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Unparalleled numbers of patients with AKI and shortage of dialysis machines and operative resources prompted consideration of expanded use of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) and evaluation of the safety and efficacy of bedside surgical placement of PD catheters.

Study design

Bedside, open PD catheter insertions were performed in early April 2020, at a large academic center in New York City. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and AKI and ambulatory patients with chronic kidney disease and impending need for RRT were included. Detailed surgical technique is described.

Results

Fourteen catheters were placed at the bedside over 2 weeks, 11 in critically ill COVID-19 patients and three in ambulatory patients. Mean patient age was 61.9 years (43–83), and mean body mass index was 27.1 (20–37.6); four patients had prior abdominal surgery. All catheters were placed successfully without routine radiographic studies or intraoperative complications. One patient (7%) experienced primary nonfunction of the catheter requiring HD. One patient had limited intraperitoneal bleeding while anticoagulated, which was managed by mechanical compression of the abdominal wall and temporarily holding anticoagulation. All other catheters had an adequate function at 3–18 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

Bedside placement of PD catheters is safe and effective in ICU and outpatient clinic settings. Our surgical protocols allowed for optimization of critical hospital resources, minimization of hazardous exposure to healthcare providers and a broader application of urgent-start PD in selected patients. Long-term follow-up is warranted.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: is it ready for prime time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an up-to-date summary of the definition, current practice and evidence regarding the role of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease who present with unplanned dialysis requirement without functional access.

RECENT FINDINGS

USPD can be broadly defined as peritoneal dialysis initiation within the first 2 weeks after catheter insertion. Published practice patterns, in terms of catheter insertion approach, peritoneal dialysis initiation time or initial fill volume, are highly variable. Most evidence comes from small, retrospective, single-center observational studies and only one randomized controlled trial. Compared with conventional-start peritoneal dialysis, USPD appears to moderately increase the risk of mechanical complications, such as dialysate leak (relative risk 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.73-5.95), but does not appear to adversely affect technique or patient survival. USPD may also reduce the risk of bacteremia compared with urgent-start hemodialysis delivered by central venous catheter (CVC).

SUMMARY

USPD represents an important opportunity to establish patients with urgent, unplanned dialysis requirements on a cost-effective, home-based dialysis modality with lower serious infection risks than the alternative option of hemodialysis via CVC. Robust, well executed trials are required to better inform optimal practice and safeguard patient-centered and patient-reported outcomes.

Comparative Study on the Outcomes of Elective-Start versus Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of the elective-start versus urgent-start use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters using percutaneous radiologic or laparoscopic techniques. Patients having their first peritoneal dialysis catheter placed and used between January 2005 and January 2018 were identified, and their medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Two groups were identified: elective-start (n = 211) and urgent-start (n = 29). Patient's demographics were similar between the two groups with the exception of age, which was higher in the elective-start group. The catheter complication rates and catheter removal rates at 3 and 12 months, mean days-to-first complication, mean days-to-catheter removal, and overall patient survival at 12 months were analyzed. Catheter complication rates at 3 and 12 months were similar between the two groups (27.8% and 48.9%, respectively, in the elective-start group versus 35.9% and 54.2%, respectively, in the urgent-start group, p=0.415). The catheter removal rates at 3 and 12 months were also similar between the two groups (p=0.088). Catheter leak was higher in the urgent-start group (13.8% versus 3.3%, respectively, p=0.011). There was no difference between the elective-start and the urgent-start groups in the mean days-to-first complication (95 vs 69, p=0.086), mean days-to-catheter removal (145 vs 127, p=0.757), and overall patient survival at 12 months (100% vs 97%, p=0.41). In conclusion, apart from catheter leak, there were similar rates of catheter complication and removal for PD catheter used for the elective-start compared to the urgent-start PD. Furthermore, the technique of placement did not affect the outcomes.

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.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis results in fewer procedures than hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized modality for hospitalized patients with an urgent need to start renal replacement therapy in the USA. Most patients begin hemodialysis (HD) with a tunneled central venous catheter (CVC).

METHODS

We examined the long-term burden of dialysis modality-related access procedures with urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD in a retrospective cohort of 73 adults. The number of access-related (mechanical and infection-related) procedures for each modality was compared in the first 30 days and cumulatively through the duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent CVC placement for HD and 23 patients underwent PD catheter placement for urgent-start dialysis. Patients were followed on average >1 year. The PD group was significantly younger, with less diabetes, with a higher pre-dialysis serum creatinine and more likely to have a planned dialysis access. The mean number of access-related procedures per patient in the two groups was not different at 30 days; however, when compared over the duration of follow-up, the number of access-related procedures was significantly higher in the HD group compared with the PD group (4.6 ± 3.9 versus 0.61 ± 0.84, P < 0.0001). This difference persisted when standardized to procedures per patient-month (0.37 ± 0.57 versus 0.081 ± 0.18, P = 0.019). Infection-related procedures were similar between groups. Findings were the same even after case-matching was performed for age and diabetes mellitus with 18 patients in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent-start PD results in fewer invasive access procedures compared with urgent-start HD long term, and should be considered for urgent-start dialysis.

Early and Late Patient Outcomes in Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

Significant interest in the practice of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is mounting internationally, with several observational studies supporting the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of this approach. However, little is known about the early complication rates and long-term technique and peritonitis-free survival for patients who start PD urgently (i.e. within 2 weeks of catheter insertion), compared to those with a conventional start.

Methods

This single-center, matched case-control study evaluated patients commencing PD between 2010 and 2015. Urgent-start PD patients were matched 1:3 with conventional-start PD controls based on diabetic status and age. The primary outcomes were early complications, both following catheter insertion and PD commencement (within 4 weeks). Secondary outcomes included technique and peritonitis-free survival.

Results

A total of 104 patients (26 urgent-start, 78 conventional-start) were included. Urgent-start patients were more likely to be referred late, initiate PD in hospital, and be prescribed lower initial exchange volumes ( p < 0.01). They experienced more frequent leaks post-catheter insertion (12% vs 1%, p = 0.047) and more frequent catheter migration following commencement of PD (12% vs 1%, p = 0.047). There were no significant differences in the rates of overall or infectious complications. Kaplan-Meier estimates of technique survival and time to first episode of peritonitis were comparable between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional-start PD, urgent-start PD has acceptably low early complication rates and similar long-term technique survival. Urgent-start PD appears to be a safe way to initiate urgent renal replacement therapy in patients without established dialysis access.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: are we there yet?

The use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has increased substantially in the United States (US) in the past decade. This was likely spurred in large part by the implementation of the expanded prospective payment system for the Medicare End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program in 2011. Over the same period, there has also been growing interest in urgent start PD, which is commonly defined as initiation of PD within 14 days of catheter insertion. Ye and colleagues recently reported their experience with urgent start PD in 2059 Chinese ESRD patients over a 9-year period. Rates of complications, including peri-catheter leaks and peritonitis, were very low despite initiation of PD immediately after open catheter placement via open laparotomy in nearly all patients. Long term technique survival was good, with only 75 patients developing catheter failure. This study provides further evidence to suggest that urgent start PD is feasible and effective, although the generalizability of these results to Western populations is unclear. Recent proposed changes to the payment models in the Medicare ESRD program, designed to incentivize use of kidney transplantation and home dialysis, are likely to further propel growth of PD and urgent start PD in the US. Further studies are needed to optimize use of urgent PD and patient outcomes.

Optimal start in dialysis shows increased survival in patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival among patients with chronic kidney disease who had optimal starts of renal replacement therapy, dialysis or hemodialysis, with patients who had suboptimal starts.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort consisting of >18 year-old patients who started renal replacement therapy, using peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, in any public hospital or associated center of the Andalusian Public Health System, between the 1st of January of 2006 and the 15th of March of 2017. The optimal start was defined when all the following criteria were met: a planned dialysis start, a minimum of six-month follow-up by a nephrologist, and a first dialysis method coinciding with the one registered at 90 days. The information was obtained from the registry of the Information System of the Transplant Autonomic Coordination of Andalusia.

RESULTS

A total of 10,692 patients were studied. 4,377 (40.9%) of these patients died. A total of 4,937 patients (46.17%) achieved optimal starts of renal replacement therapy and showed higher survival rates (HR 0.669; 95% CI 0.628-0.712) in the multivariate analysis of Cox regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an optimal start of renal replacement therapy have a greater survival than those who had a non-optimal start. Therefore, the necessary measures should be encouraged to increase the optimal start of the patient in dialysis.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although historically peritoneal dialysis was widely used in nephrology, it has been underutilized in recent years. In this review, we present several key opportunities and strategies for revitalization of urgent start peritoneal dialysis use, and discuss the recent literature on clinical experience with peritoneal dialysis use in the acute and unplanned setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interest in using urgent start peritoneal dialysis to manage acute kidney injury (AKI) and unplanned chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 patients has been increasing. To overcome some of the classic limitations of peritoneal dialysis use in AKI, such as a high chance of infectious and mechanical complications, and no control of urea, the use of cycles, flexible catheters, and a high volume of dialysis fluid has been proposed. This knowledge can be used in the case of an unplanned start on chronic peritoneal dialysis, and may be a tool to increase the peritoneal dialysis penetration rate among incident patients starting chronic dialysis therapy.

SUMMARY

Peritoneal dialysis should be offered in an unbiased way to all patients starting unplanned dialysis, and without contraindications to peritoneal dialysis. It may be a feasible, well tolerated, and complementary alternative to hemodialysis, not only in the chronic setting, but also in the acute.

Prognostic factors in patients undergoing early-start peritoneal dialysis within 24 h after catheter insertion

This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics, prognosis, and factors for survival of patients who underwent early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) within 24 h after catheter insertion three years after PD. This study was conducted from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. All adult patients who were diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and underwent PD for the first time within 24 h after catheter insertion in our hospital were included. All patients with PD were followed-up until they withdrew from PD, switching to hemodialysis, were transferred to other medical centers, underwent renal transplantation, died or were lost to follow-up, or continued to undergo dialysis until the end of the study period. The follow-up observation lasted three years. The number of eligible patients was 110, and switching to hemodialysis and death were the main reasons for patients to withdraw from PD. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year technical survival rates of patients were 89.1, 79.1, and 79.1% respectively, while the 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rates were 90, 81.8, and 81.8%, respectively. The Charlson comorbidity index, age, hemoglobin, serum albumin, diabetic nephropathy, chronic glomerulonephritis, and hypertensive renal damage were independent risk factors that affected the prognosis of PD patients. Under the condition of ensuring the quality of the PD catheter insertion, early-start PD within 24 h after catheter insertion is a safe treatment approach for ESRD patients.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis as a Bridge to Definitive Chronic Renal Replacement Therapy: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Background: The peritoneal dialysis (PD) urgent-start pathway, without typical 2-week break-in period, was meant for late-referral patients able and prone to join PD-first program, with its main advantages such as: keeping the vascular system intact, preserving their residual renal function and retaining life-style flexibility. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive 35 patients after urgent- and 94 patients after the planned start of PD as the first choice.

Methods: The study included all incident end-stage renal disease patients starting PD program between January 2005 and December 2015, classified into two groups: those with urgent (unplanned) and those with elective (planned) start. Urgent PD was initiated as an overnight automatic procedure (APD) with dwell volume gradually increased, and after 2–3 weeks, target PD method was established.

Results: The mean time between catheter implantation and PD start was 3.5 ± 2.3 in urgent and 16.2 ± 1.7 days in planned-start groups (p < 0.00001). 51% of the patients in the urgent-start group required PD during first 48 h after catheter insertion. Mean follow-up of 17.6 ± 11.09 months (median: 19.0) was in the urgent-start group and 28.6 ± 26.6 months (median: 19.5) in the planned-start group. The early mechanical complications were observed more often in the urgent-start group (29 vs. 4%, p = 0.00005). The only significant predictors of early mechanical complications were serum albumin (p = 0.02) and time between the catheter insertion and PD start. The first year patient survival and technique survival censored for death and kidney transplantation were not significantly different between groups. In Cox proportional analysis the independent risk factors for patient survival as well as for method and patient survival appeared Charlson Comorbidity Index CCI (HR 1.4; p = 0.01 and 1.24; p = 0.02) and time from catheter implantation to PD start with HR 5.11; p = 0.03 and 4.29; p = 0.04 for <2 days, while time >14 days lost its predictive value (p = 0.07).

Conclusion: Peritoneal dialysis may be a feasible and safe alternative to HD in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access, with an acceptable complications rates, as well as patient and technique survival.

Early Mortality Among Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis Patients Who Transitioned With an Optimal Outpatient Start

Introduction

Lower early mortality observed in peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) may be due to differential pre–end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care and the stable setting of transition to dialysis where PD starts are more frequently outpatient rather than during an unscheduled hospitalization. To account for these circumstances, we compared early mortality among a matched cohort of PD and HD patients who had optimal and outpatient starts.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study performed among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who transitioned to ESRD from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2015 with an optimal start in an outpatient setting. Optimal start defined as (i) HD with an arteriovenous graft or fistula or (ii) PD. Propensity score modeling factoring age, race, sex, comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level, and change in eGFR before ESRD was used to create a matched cohort of HD and PD. All-cause mortality was compared at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years posttransition to ESRD.

Results

Among 2094 patients (1398 HD and 696 PD) who had optimal outpatient transition to ESRD, 541 HD patients were propensity score–matched to 541 PD patients (caliper distance <0.001). All-cause mortality odds ratios (OR) in PD compared with HD were 0.79 (0.39–1.63), 0.73 (0.43–1.23), and 0.88 (0.62–1.26) for 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Time-varying analysis accounting for modality switch (19% PD, 1.9% HD) demonstrated a mortality hazard ratio of 0.94 (0.70–1.24)

Conclusion

Among an optimal start CKD cohort that transitioned to ESRD on an outpatient basis, we found no evidence of differences in early mortality between PD and HD.

Acute peritoneal dialysis in neonatal intensive care unit: An 8-year experience of a referral hospital

BACKGROUND

The aim of present study was to evaluate the indications, complications and outcomes of acute peritoneal dialysis (APD) in neonates at a referral university hospital during the previous 8 years.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included a total of 52 newborn infants who underwent APD in a neonatal intensive care unit between January 2008 and March 2016. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and microbiological data were extracted from patients' medical files.

RESULTS

The primary causes for requiring APD were acute tubular necrosis (n = 36, 69.2%), inborn error of metabolism (n = 10, 19.2%), congenital nephrotic syndrome (n = 2, 3.9%), bilateral polycystic kidney (n = 2, 3.9%), renal agenesis (n = 1, 1.9%), and obstructive uropathy (n = 1, 1.9%). The mean duration of APD was 8.7 ± 15.87 days (range: 1-90 days). Procedural complications were mainly hyperglycemia (n = 16, 47.1%), dialysate leakage (n = 7, 20.6%), peritonitis (n = 3, 8.8%), catheter obstruction (n = 3, 8.8%), bleeding at the time of catheter insertion (n = 2, 5.9%), catheter exit site infection (n = 2, 5.9%), and bowel perforation (n = 1 2.9%). There were 40 deaths (76.9%), mainly due to underlying causes. Ten of the 12 survivors showed full renal recovery, but mild chronic renal failure (n = 1) and proteinuria with hypertension were seen (n = 1) in each of remaining patients.

CONCLUSION

Peritoneal dialysis is an effective route of renal replacement therapy in the neonatal period for management of metabolic disturbances as well as renal failure. Although major complications of the procedure are uncommon, these patients still have a high mortality rate due to serious nature of the underlying primary causes.

Peritoneal dialysis as initial dialysis modality: a viable option for late-presenting end-stage renal disease

Late-presenting end-stage renal disease is a significant problem worldwide. Up to 70% of patients start dialysis in an unplanned manner without a definitive dialysis access in place. Haemodialysis via a central venous catheter is the default modality for the majority of such patients, and peritoneal dialysis is usually not considered as a feasible option. However, in the recent years, some reports on urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in the late-presenting end-stage renal disease have been published. The collective experience shows that PD can be a safe, efficient and cost-effective alternative to haemodialysis in late-presenting end-stage renal disease with comparable outcomes to the conventional peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start haemodialysis. More importantly, as compared to urgent-start haemodialysis via a central venous catheter, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis has significantly fewer incidences of catheter-related bloodstream infections, dialysis-related complications and need for dialysis catheter re-insertions during the initial phase of the therapy. This article examines the rationale and feasibility for starting peritoneal dialysis urgently in late-presenting end-stage renal disease patients and reviews the literature to compare the urgent-start peritoneal dialysis with conventional peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start haemodialysis.

Identifying Barriers to Preemptive Kidney Transplantation in a Living Donor Transplant Cohort

Background

Despite substantial evidence demonstrating clear benefit, rates of preemptive kidney transplantation (PreKTx) remain low in the United States. Our goal was to identify barriers to PreKTx.

Methods

Using a telephone-administered questionnaire including questions about barriers, timing of referral, timing of education, we retrospectively studied first living donor kidney transplant recipients (2006-2010) at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Of 235 patients, 145 (62%) responded to the questionnaire (74 PreKTx and 71 non-PreKTx). We compared categorical data with Fisher exact test and median times with Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

Polycystic kidney disease (PCKD), longer median time between diagnosis and transplant, and time between education about transplant and transplant correlated with PreKTx (P < 0.01). The presence of at least 1 patient-identified barrier (lack of referral, financial barriers, medical barriers, no identified living donor and donor evaluation delays) was associated with non-PreKTx (0.034) though no single barrier predominated. Age, education level, insurance status and source of referral (primary care, nephrology, and nonphysician referral) were not associated with the rate of PreKTx. Univariate logistic regression identified white race, PCKD, and increased time from diagnosis as factors favoring PreKTx; PCKD and increased time remained significant factors after multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Even among a patient population that is primarily white, educated, and has a spouse or first-degree relative donor, PreKTx rates remain concerningly low. Increased time between diagnosis or education and transplant are predictors of PreKTx. Greater emphasis on transplant education earlier in the stages of chronic kidney disease and community outreach from transplant centers may help to increase the rate of PreKTx.

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.

Peritoneal dialysis practice in Australia and New Zealand: A call to sustain the action

This paper updates a previous 'Call to Action' paper (Nephrology 2011; 16: 19-29) that reviewed key outcome data for Australian and New Zealand peritoneal dialysis patients and made recommendations to improve care. Since its publication, peritonitis rates have improved significantly, although they have plateaued more recently. Peritoneal dialysis patient and technique survival in Australian and New Zealand have also improved, with a reduction in the proportion of technique failures attributed to 'social reasons'. Despite these improvements, technique survival rates overall remain lower than in many other parts of the world. This update includes additional practical recommendations based on published evidence and emerging initiatives to further improve outcomes.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients: Complications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Our study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.

CONCLUSION

In an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.

We Use Permcaths Instead of Peritoneal Catheters for Acute Kidney Injury and Urgent-Start Dialysis

The rising tide of severe acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (AKI-D) and unplanned dialysis initiation for advanced CKD patients remains a major problem for the nephrology community worldwide. Hemodialysis (HD) through a central venous catheter remains the most common practice for both. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains greatly underutilized despite mounting evidence of equipoise with HD for a significant proportion of patients. PD is technically simpler, requires less infrastructure, and costs less. However, the structure of our healthcare system, hospital logistics, and the current state of nephrology training all contribute to the reflexive consult for a central venous catheter. As clinicians, we must ask ourselves if we are doing our patients and our healthcare system a disservice by not offering PD in AKI and urgent-start situations.

Timing of Initiation of RRT and Modality Selection

There is no shortage of studies and registry data examining outcomes of patients on dialysis and those with a renal transplant. However, recently, there has been a greater focus on the events leading up to the institution of kidney replacement therapy. Associative data suggest that early and consistent predialysis care leads to better outcomes, including greater take-on to home-based therapy, diminished use of tunneled venous hemodialysis catheters, and improved early and even late survival. What transpires during predialysis visits is also important. Simple dissemination of facts to the unprepared patient is unlikely to be effective in moving the patient and family along in the process of the series of choices that have to be made around therapy. A more flexible and circumspect approach is needed, including recognizing when the patient is or is not ready for change. There seems to be no optimal timing of dialysis start that can be applied to the ESRD population as a whole, although the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward symptom-based rather than eGFR-based starts.