Mortality, hospitalization and transfer to haemodialysis and hybrid therapy, in Japanese peritoneal dialysis patients

Peritoneal dialysis-related infections in elderly patients

This review outlines the epidemiology, characteristics, risk factors, and prognosis of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis, PD catheter-related infections, and the effects of assisted PD in elderly patients from the Japanese perspective. Based on the literature, the incidence of peritonitis is likely to be higher in elderly patients than in younger patients. The most frequent causative bacteria in elderly patients are Gram-positive bacteria, as in adult PD patients, most commonly due to transcatheter infection. However, elderly patients may have difficulty recognizing cloudy drainage fluid due to decreased visual acuity. Hypokalemia, the use of gastric acid suppressants, prophylactic antibiotic use before endoscopy, biocompatible fluids and hypoalbuminemia considered modifiable risk factors for peritonitis. However, the mechanism by which treatment of hypokalemia prevents peritonitis is unknown. Currently, the relationship between gastric acid suppression therapy and peritonitis in elderly patients is debatable, with no evidence to strongly recommend uniform discontinuation of gastric acid suppression therapy. Exit-site infection (ESI) is a major risk factor for the development of peritonitis, and appropriate prevention and management of ESI may reduce infection-related hospitalizations in PD patients. Currently, no randomized, controlled trials have verified the effectiveness of antibiotic application for ESI in Japan, but results from other countries are awaited. In assisted PD, it is extremely important that family members, caregivers, and nurses who support the procedure receive sufficient education and training from medical professionals familiar with PD. Early detection and treatment of PD-related infections are required because the risk of death increases in elderly patients.

A multi-institutional, observational study of outcomes after catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis in Japan

BACKGROUND

This multi-institutional, observational study examined whether the outcomes after peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement in Japan meet the audit criteria of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guideline and identified factors affecting technique survival and perioperative complications.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent first PD catheter placement for end-stage kidney disease between April 2019 and March 2021 were followed until PD withdrawal, kidney transplantation, transfer to other facilities, death, 1 year after PD start or March 2022, whichever came first. Primary outcomes were time to catheter patency failure and technique failure, and perioperative infectious complications within 30 days of catheter placement. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of the total 409 patients, 8 who underwent the embedded catheter technique did not have externalised catheters. Of the 401 remaining patients, catheter patency failure occurred in 25 (6.2%). Technical failure at 12 months after PD catheter placement calculated from cumulative incidence function was 15.3%. On Cox proportional hazards model analysis, serum albumin (hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.70) and straight type catheter (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.24-3.69) were the independent risk factors for technique failure. On logistic regression analysis, diabetes mellitus was the only independent risk factor for perioperative infectious complications (odds ratio 2.70, 95% CI 1.30-5.58). The occurrence rate of perioperative complications generally met the audit criteria of the ISPD guidelines.

CONCLUSION

PD catheter placement in Japan was proven to be safe and appropriate.

Comparable outcomes between a combination of peritoneal dialysis with once-weekly haemodialysis and thrice-weekly haemodialysis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of a combination of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and once-weekly haemodialysis (PD + HD) have not been extensively studied.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study using the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Renal Data Registry included those who transitioned from PD to PD + HD therapy or thrice-weekly HD from 2011 to 2018. Exposure was PD + HD therapy compared with thrice-weekly HD. The outcome was time to all-cause or cause-specific death. Associations between PD + HD therapy and outcomes were examined by Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed by propensity score (PS) matching, PS matching with a shared frailty model in which dialysis facilities were treated as a random effect, inverse probability weighting (IPW), PS adjustment, PS stratification, competing risk regression and on-treatment analyses in which data were censored at the transition to thrice-weekly HD for those on PD + HD therapy.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1001 subjects transitioned to PD + HD therapy and 2031 to thrice-weekly HD. During a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 575 subjects died. All-cause, cardiovascular, congestive heart failure-related or infection-related mortality were not significantly different between those on PD + HD and those on thrice-weekly HD [hazard ratio 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.78-1.16), 1.26 (0.92-1.72), 1.24 (0.77-1.99) and 0.89 (0.57-1.39), respectively]. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results except that PD + HD therapy was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality by PS adjustment and PS matching with the shared frailty model and lower infection-related mortality by PS adjustment and IPW.

CONCLUSIONS

PD + HD therapy was associated with similar or potentially lower mortality compared with thrice-weekly HD. Considering a flexible lifestyle, PD + HD therapy could be a great option.

An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Transitions between dialysis modalities

Thanks to the progress of dialysis, survival of patients with end-stage renal disease is increasing. For those patients who cannot benefit from a kidney transplantation, several dialysis alternatives exist, but the transition between dialysis techniques may be difficult. Home dialysis offers many advantages but requires personal commitment from the patients and the caregivers. How can we ensure smooth transitioning to the best dialysis technique at the right time for the right person? One of the main caveats of peritoneal dialysis is its limited technique survival, however, it combines the advantages of preserving residual kidney function, avoiding the need for a vascular access, or preserving it, when present, while providing good cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, home hemodialysis has excellent long-term technique survival. The home integrated model of peritoneal dialysis followed by home hemodialysis has been described as the ideal pathway of care. Eventually, in-center hemodialysis can be provided according to several schedules to adapt to the needs of the patients. The issue of technique survival and the possible need to switch to another technique should be part of the initial discussion, when the patient needs to choose the first dialysis modality. Unplanned transfers are associated with poor outcomes and unwanted shifts to in-center hemodialysis. Therefore, transfers from home-based techniques should be anticipated as much as possible in order to establish a shared decision modality process and to choose the desired new modality. Dialysis units dedicated to "transition care" should answer the needs of patients and smooth the transition process between dialysis modalities.

Epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis outcomes

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important home-based treatment for kidney failure and accounts for 11% of all dialysis and 9% of all kidney replacement therapy globally. Although PD is available in 81% of countries, this provision ranges from 96% in high-income countries to 32% in low-income countries. Compared with haemodialysis, PD has numerous potential advantages, including a simpler technique, greater feasibility of use in remote communities, generally lower cost, lesser need for trained staff, fewer management challenges during natural disasters, possibly better survival in the first few years, greater ability to travel, fewer dietary restrictions, better preservation of residual kidney function, greater treatment satisfaction, better quality of life, better outcomes following subsequent kidney transplantation, delayed need for vascular access (especially in small children), reduced need for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and lower risk of blood-borne virus infections and of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PD outcomes have been improving over time but with great variability, driven by individual and system-level inequities and by centre effects; this variation is exacerbated by a lack of standardized outcome definitions. Potential strategies for outcome improvement include enhanced standardization, monitoring and reporting of PD outcomes, and the implementation of continuous quality improvement programmes and of PD-specific interventions, such as incremental PD, the use of biocompatible PD solutions and remote PD monitoring.

The use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be advantageous compared with haemodialysis treatment, although several barriers limit its broad implementation. This review examines the epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis (PD) outcomes, including clinical, patient-reported and surrogate PD outcomes.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has distinct advantages compared with haemodialysis, including the convenience of home treatment, improved quality of life, technical simplicity, lesser need for trained staff, greater cost-effectiveness in most countries, improved equity of access to dialysis in resource-limited settings, and improved survival, particularly in the first few years of initiating therapy.

Important barriers can hamper PD utilization in low-income settings, including the high costs of PD fluids (owing to the inability to manufacture them locally and the exorbitant costs of their import), limited workforce availability and a practice culture that limits optimal PD use, often leading to suboptimal outcomes.

PD outcomes are highly variable around the world owing in part to the use of variable outcome definitions, a heterogeneous practice culture, the lack of standardized monitoring and reporting of quality indicators, and kidney failure care gaps (including health care workforce shortages, inadequate health care financing, suboptimal governance and a lack of good health care information systems).

Key outcomes include not only clinical outcomes (typically defined as medical outcomes based on clinician assessment or diagnosis) — for example, PD-related infections, technique survival, mechanical complications, hospitalizations and PD-related mortality — but also patient-reported outcomes. These outcomes are directly reported by patients and focus on how they function or feel, typically in relation to quality of life or symptoms; patient-reported outcomes are used less frequently than clinical outcomes in day-to-day routine care.

Historical overview and current practice of peritoneal dialysis in Japan

In the early days of peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy, its limited duration and peritoneal deterioration were argued to be its disadvantages. Biocompatible solutions and hybrid therapy have been used in Japan to overcome these issues, which resulted in a decrease in encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) incidence and an extension of PD continuation; these results have been disseminated worldwide. Peritoneal dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (PDOPPS), a prospective observational study, has begun to confirm the outcomes of PD therapy, and sufficient evidence has been published, which has influenced the preparation of PD guidelines. Current thinking about PD emphasizes the need to maintain quality of life and life goals as care goals for patients and to provide high-quality care. However, we must conduct basic research on the prevention of peritoneal deterioration.

Literature review: Combined therapy with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the recommended renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Complementary hemodialysis (HD) once per week for PD patients can aid in achieving adequate dialysis and extend the duration of PD treatment. In Japan, this therapy is termed “combined therapy with PD and hemodialysis (combPDHD).” CombPDHD represents a treatment option for PD patients for whom adequate dialysis cannot be maintained. CombPDHD has been widely applied in Japanese PD patients; however, it is much less common outside of Japan. Clinical evidence, particularly regarding long-term prognosis and appropriate duration of treatment, remains insufficient.

Summary

CombPDHD will be required as an alternative for increasing the dose of PD under various conditions, such as a loss of residual kidney function (RKF) and peritoneal functional failure. The Japanese regimen for combPDHD involves 5 or 6 days of PD, combined with one weekly session of hemodialysis. According to some reports, the potential benefits of combPDHD are peritoneal rest with improved peritoneal function and delay in membrane deterioration. CombPDHD prevents peritoneal dysfunction and reduces cardiovascular complications by adjusting the fluid volume and improving renal anemia. Increased D/PCr indicates a deterioration in peritoneal function and is an independent risk factor for encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS). It is previously reported that no significant differences in combPDHD duration were observed between EPS and non-EPS groups. Laparoscopic findings involving patients with combPDHD revealed that there was a difference in abdominal wall degeneration depending on the intra-abdominal cavity of each case. Recently, prospective studies on long-term peritoneal function, survival, and hospitalization in combPDHD have been reported. However, reviews evaluating combPDHD long-term outcomes in multicenter and prospective studies are lacking.

Conclusion

It is difficult to continue PD alone with a declining RKF or when self-management is poor. Hence, combPDHD should be started to adjust the fluid volume, with adequate dialysis dose and peritoneal rest. This therapy is useful from a lifestyle viewpoint during the transition period from PD to HD and should not be continued indefinitely.

High body mass index is a risk factor for transition to hemodialysis or hybrid therapy and peritoneal dialysis-related infection in Japanese patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis

PURPOSE

Obesity may negatively impact the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, the impact of obesity on PD-related outcomes remains unclear. We herein examined the association of high body mass index (BMI) with complete hemodialysis (HD) transfer, transition to HD and PD/HD hybrid therapy, peritonitis, catheter exit-site and tunnel infection (ESI/TI), and heart failure-related hospitalization.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 120 patients who underwent PD-catheter insertion between January 2008 and June 2018. BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² at the time of PD-catheter insertion was defined as high BMI, and its association with outcomes was analyzed using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The follow-up duration was 46.2 (23.3-75.3) months. The time until transfer to HD and hybrid therapy was significantly shorter in the high BMI group than that in the low BMI group, whereas the time until HD transfer was not significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.001 and 0.18, respectively). Peritonitis-free and ESI/TI-free survivals were significantly shorter in the high BMI group than those in the low BMI group (P = 0.006 and 0.03, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, high BMI remained a significant risk factor for transferring to HD and hybrid therapy, peritonitis, and ESI/TI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.60, P < 0.001; HR 2.08, P = 0.01; HR 2.64, P = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² is a risk factor for transition to HD and hybrid therapy, peritonitis, and ESI/TI, but not for complete HD transfer in Japanese patients with PD.

Clinical Factors Associated with Serum Magnesium Concentration in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis: A Single-Center Observational Study

Purpose

Magnesium (Mg) is an essential element that is associated with various physiological functions, such as maintenance of blood pressure, muscle contraction, and nerve function. In patients undergoing hemodialysis, hypomagnesemia is associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), clinical factors associated with Mg have not been fully investigated.

Patients and Methods

Clinical factors including anthropometric data, comorbidities, laboratory data, medications, and dialysis methods were collected from the medical records of patients undergoing PD. The associations of these factors with the serum Mg concentration were investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Sixty patients undergoing PD were investigated. The univariate analysis showed that the serum Mg concentration was significantly associated with treatment by hybrid PD (daily PD + once-weekly hemodialysis) (β = 0.264, P = 0.04), administration of phosphate binders (β = 0.294, P = 0.02), the serum C-reactive protein concentration (β = -0.318, P = 0.01), the serum potassium (K) concentration (β = 0.451, P < 0.01), and the serum intact parathormone concentration (β = -0.333, P = 0.01). The multivariate analysis using these factors showed an independent association between the serum Mg and K concentrations (β = 0.333, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

The serum Mg concentration was independently associated with the serum K concentration in patients undergoing PD.

Revue de presse club des jeunes néphrologues (CJN) : 2e trimestre 2021 de la Dialyse à Domicile

Un groupe de néphrologues issus du Club des jeunes Néphrologues sélectionne chaque mois à tour de rôle un article de la littérature internationale en rapport avec la dialyse à domicile, Dialyse Péritonéale ou Hémodialyse à Domicile, et en propose un résumé en français et son analyse. Ces résumés sont librement téléchargeables sur le site du RDPLF à l’adresse : https://www.rdplf.org/biblio.html. Depuis décembre 2018 ceux sélectionnés au cours du trimestre par ces néphrologues sont publiés sous leur nom dans la présente rubrique du Bulletin de la Dialyse à Domicile.