Randomised controlled trial to determine the appropriate time to initiate peritoneal dialysis after insertion of catheter to minimise complications (Timely PD study)

Outcome measures for technique survival reported in peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique survival is an important outcome for patients, caregivers and health professionals, however, the definition and measures used for technique survival vary. We aimed to assess the scope and consistency of definitions and measures used for technique survival in studies of patients receiving PD.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) conducted in patients receiving PD reporting technique survival as an outcome between database inception and December 2019. The definition and measures used were extracted and independently assessed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs with a total of 3645 participants (41-371 per trial) and follow up ranging from 6 weeks to 4 years. Terminology used included 'technique survival' (10 studies), 'transfer to haemodialysis (HD)' (8 studies) and 'technique failure' (7 studies) with 17 different definitions. In seven studies, it was unclear whether the definition included transfer to HD, death or transplantation and eight studies reported 'transfer to HD' without further definition regarding duration or other events. Of those remaining, five studies included death in their definition of a technique event, whereas death was censored in the other five. The duration of HD necessary to qualify as an event was reported in only four (16%) studies. Of the 14 studies reporting causes of an event, all used a different list of causes.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial heterogeneity in how PD technique survival is defined and measured, likely contributing to considerable variability in reported rates. Standardised measures for reporting technique survival in PD studies are required to improve comparability.

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.

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 Randomized Controlled Trial to Determine the Appropriate Time to Initiate Peritoneal Dialysis after Insertion of Catheter (Timely PD Study)

Background

The optimal time for the commencement of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after PD catheter insertion is unclear. If dialysis is started too soon after insertion, dialysate leaks and infection could occur. However, by starting PD earlier, morbidity and costs can be reduced through lesser hemodialysis requirements. This is the first randomized controlled trial to determine the safest and shortest interval to commence PD after catheter insertion.

Methods

All consecutive patients undergoing PD catheter insertion at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and Rockhampton Hospital from 1 March 2008 to 31 May 2013 who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were invited to participate in the trial. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups. Group 1 (G1) commenced PD at 1 week, group 2 (G2) at 2 weeks and group 3 (G3) at 4 weeks after PD catheter insertion. These groups were stratified by hospital and the presence of diabetes. Primary outcomes were the incidence of peritoneal fluid leaks or PD-related infection during the 4 weeks after commencement of PD.

Results

In total 122 participants were recruited, 39, 42, and 41 randomized to G1, G2, and G3, respectively. The primary outcome catheter leak was significantly higher in G1 (28.2%) compared with G3 (2.4%, p = 0.001) but not compared with G2 (9.5%, p = 0.044), based on intention to treat analysis. These differences were even more marked when analyzed with per protocol method: G1 had a significantly higher percentage (32.4 %) compared with G3 (3.3%, p = 0.003) but not compared with G2 (10.5%, p = 0.040). Event percentages of leak were statistically higher in G1 and occurred significantly earlier compared with other groups ( p = 0.002). Amongst diabetics, technique failure was significantly higher (28.6%) in G3 compared with 0% in G1 and 7.1% in G2 ( p = 0.036) and earlier in G3 at 163.2 days vs 176.8 and 175.8 ( p = 0.037) for G1 and G2, respectively.

Conclusion

Leaks were higher in participants commencing PD at 1 week after catheter insertion compared with the other 2 groups, and technique failure was higher in diabetics starting PD at 4 weeks.

Surgical Management of Complications with Peritoneal Dialysis

This report reviews the most common surgical interventions and complications of chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Based on the current knowledge as well as our experience we detail the role of these surgical procedures. We supplement the reported knowledge in the field with our own experience in this area. The areas discussed include early complications such as surgical wound hemorrhage, bleeding from the catheter, intestinal perforation and urinary bladder perforation, dialysate leakage through the wound, as well as late complications including catheter kinking or occlusion, retention of fluid in the peritoneal recess, hernias and hydrothorax, and encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. We also briefly cover the surgical aspects of exit-site infection and peritonitis. An understanding by nephrologists of the role for surgical intervention in PD patients will improve their care and outcomes.

Overcoming the Underutilisation of Peritoneal Dialysis

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

Comparison of percutaneous versus open surgical techniques for placement of peritoneal dialysis catheter in children: A randomized clinical trial

Background This research compares the outcomes of percutaneous technique and open surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement in children.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, between 2010 and 2011,a total of 35 pediatric uremic patients were enrolled and randomized into two study groups. Follow up data included duration of operation (minute), duration of hospitalization (days) and onset time of peritoneal dialysis. Complications were considered as mechanical and infectious.

RESULTS

The percutaneous procedure was significantly faster than the open surgical technique (9.5 ± 1.81 versus 27.00 ± 2.61 minutes, p= 0.0001). The onset of dialysis was earlier in percutaneous insertion. There were no cases of hollow viscous perforation, early peritonitis and exit site infection at the 3rd, 7th, and 14th day in both groups. Complications in open surgical group were include wrapped omentum in 4 (23.5%), catheter malposition in 3 (17.6%),delayed exit site infection in 2 (11.7%), Incisional hernia in 1 (5.8%)and hemoperitoneum in 2 (11.7%)cases. Complications in percutaneous insertion group were include catheter malposition and wrapped omentum each in one case.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous method with secure insertion of the catheter reduced the rate of some complications. Although they were not statistically significant, this technique reduces the time of hospitalization and operation without need to general anesthesia. The onset of dialysis was earlier significantly. Trial registry code: IRCT2013091514670N1.

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is associated with significant morbidity including death, hospitalisation, and need to change from PD to haemodialysis. Treatment is aimed to reduce morbidity and recurrence. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to March 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, and handsearching conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in PD patients (adults and children). We included any study that evaluated: administration of an antibiotic by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal (IP), intravenous (IV)); dose of an antibiotic agent; different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Multiple authors independently extracted data on study risk of bias and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model. We expressed summarised treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies in 2433 participants: antimicrobial agents (36 studies); urokinase (4 studies), peritoneal lavage (1 study), and IP immunoglobulin (1 study). We did not identify any optimal antibiotic agent or combination of agents. IP glycopeptides (vancomycin or teicoplanin) had uncertain effects on primary treatment response, relapse rates, and need for catheter removal compared to first generation cephalosporins, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.72). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal and replacement was better than urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91) although evidence was limited to a single small study. Continuous and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing schedules had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure in one small study (RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). Longer duration treatment (21 days of IV vancomycin and IP gentamicin) had uncertain effects on risk of treatment relapse compared with 10 days treatment (1 study, 49 patients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.95) although may have increased ototoxicity.In general, review conclusions were based on a small number of studies with few events in which risk of bias was generally high; interventions were heterogeneous, and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs evaluating optimal timing of catheter removal and data for automated PD were absent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the studies evaluating treatment of PD-related peritonitis are small, out-dated, of poor quality, and had inconsistent definitions and dosing regimens. IP administration of antibiotics was superior to IV administration for treating PD-associated peritonitis and glycopeptides appear optimal for complete cure of peritonitis, although evidence for this finding was assessed as low quality. PD catheter removal may be the best treatment for relapsing or persistent peritonitis.Evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis. No specific antibiotic appears to have superior efficacy for preventing treatment failure or relapse of peritonitis, but evidence is limited to few trials. The role of routine peritoneal lavage or urokinase is uncertain.

Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion: does it really make a difference?

Permanent peritoneal dialysis (PD) access was first described and introduced in clinical practice more than 40 years ago. It is still undergoing modification and adaptation to various insertion techniques. PD Catheter insertion is commonly performed via one of the three techniques: (a) open surgical, (b) fluoroscopic-guided placement or blind percutaneous placements using a modified Seldinger technique and (c) minimally invasive. Catheter placement is thought to be the key to a successful PD programme and the economic advantages are lost if a patient switches to HD during the 1st year due to failure of PD. The objective of this document was to conduct an evidence-based assessment of a minimally invasive approach to PD catheter insertion, with particular regard to failure rates secondary to catheter dysfunction. Case series and randomised controlled trials suggest that laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is safe, and useful for insertion of PD catheters in patients who have undergone previous abdominal surgery. An overall success rate of 90% with a less than 5% associated leak rate has been quoted, although a cost benefit analysis has not been performed. However, good grade I evidence is lacking and open surgery may be quicker, though results from on-going trial are awaited with interest.

Can peritoneal dialysis be applied for unplanned initiation of chronic dialysis?

Late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and unforeseeable deterioration of residual renal function in known CKD patients remain a major problem leading to the need of unplanned start on chronic dialysis without a mature access for dialysis. In most centres worldwide, these patients are started on haemodialysis (HD) using a temporary tunnelled central venous catheter (CVC) for access. However, during the last decade, increasing clinical experience with unplanned start on peritoneal dialysis (PD) right after PD catheter implantation has been published. Key studies are reviewed in the present paper, and the results seem to indicate that compared with patients starting PD in a planned setting with peritoneal resting after PD catheter implantation, patients starting unplanned PD have an increased risk of mechanical complications but apparently no increased risk of infectious complications. In contrast, patients starting unplanned HD using a temporary CVC have an increased risk of both mechanical and infectious complications when compared with patients starting planned HD using an arterio-venous fistula or a permanent CVC. Regarding clinical outcome in terms of survival, unplanned PD seems to be at least as safe as unplanned HD. Combining the unplanned PD programme with a nurse-assisted PD programme is crucial in order to offer the patient a real opportunity to choose a home-based dialysis option. In conclusion, unplanned start on PD seems to be a feasible, safe and efficient alternative to unplanned start on HD for the late referred patient with end-stage renal disease and urgent need for dialysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complication rate and catheter survival

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. There are several configurations of PD catheter design that may impact catheter function, such as the shape of the intraperitoneal segment, the number of cuffs, and the subcutaneous configuration. This review and meta-analysis was carried out to determine whether there is a clinical advantage for one of the catheter types or configurations. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 10). The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews and written based on the PRISMA statement. The initial search yielded 682 hits from which 13 randomized controlled trials were identified. Outcomes of interest were as follows: catheter survival, drainage dysfunction, migration, leakage, exit-site infections, peritonitis, and catheter removal. Comparing straight vs. swan neck and single vs. double-cuffed catheters, no differences were found when results were pooled. Comparison of straight vs. coiled-tip catheters demonstrated that survival was significantly different in favor of straight catheters (hazard ratio 2.05; confidence interval 1.10-3.79, P=0.02). For surgically inserted catheters, the removal rate and survival at 1 year after insertion were significantly in favor of straight catheters. Our meta-analysis clearly demonstrates benefits for catheters with a straight intraperitoneal segment.

Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. Key to successful peritoneal dialysis is a well-functioning catheter. The different insertion techniques may be of great importance. Mostly, the standard operative approach is the open technique; however, laparoscopic insertion is increasingly popular. Catheter malfunction is reported up to 35% for the open technique and up to 13% for the laparoscopic technique. However, evidence is lacking to definitely conclude that the laparoscopic approach is to be preferred. This review and meta-analysis was carried out to investigate if one of the techniques is superior to the other.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 10). Reference lists were searched manually. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for interventional systematic reviews, and written based on the PRISMA-statement.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and eight cohort studies were identified. Nine postoperative outcome measures were meta-analyzed; of these, seven were not different between operation techniques. Based on the meta-analysis, the proportion of migrating catheters was lower (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.63; P = 0.006), and the one-year catheter survival was higher in the laparoscopic group (OR 3.93, CI 1.80 to 8.57; P = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results there is some evidence in favour of the laparoscopic insertion technique for having a higher one-year catheter survival and less migration, which would be clinically relevant.

Renal anemia - risk factor for chronic kidney disease

The purpose of this research was to analyze the influence of anemia on renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease. Were monitored for 12 months 165 patients with chronic kidney disease, 96 patients had anemia and a control group of 69 patients had no anemia. A value of hemoglobin under 120 g/L in women and under 130 g/L in men on admission defined anemia. Anemia was associated with a more severe renal damage, a lower residual diuresis, especially in the presence of other risk factors such as diabetes, inflammation or secondary hyperparathyroidism, so early diagnosis and correction of anemia is important for prognosis and evolution of these patients.

A brief recap of tips and surgical manoeuvres to enhance optimal outcome of surgically placed peritoneal dialysis catheters

Background. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective option of renal replacement therapy for ESRF, offering advantages over haemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement is thought to be the key to successful PD and the economic advantages are lost if a patient switches to HD in the 1st year. This paper is a brief document elaborating a recap of published literature, looking at various surgical tips and manoeuvres to enhance optimal outcome of PDC placement. Methods. A search strategy assessing for access team, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, type of catheter, catheter exit site, intraoperative catheter trial, optimal time to commence PD, hernia repairs, number of cuffs, catheter-embedding procedures, rectus sheath tunnelling, laparoscopic fixing, omentopexy, omentectomy, the "Y"-Tec system, resection of epiploic appendages, adhesiolysis, a trained surgeon, and perioperative catheter care protocol was used looking at various databases. Findings. The complications of catheterrelated dysfunction can be reduced with advanced planning of access placement, immaculate surgery, and attention to catheter insertion techniques. Conclusion. The success of a peritoneal dialysis programme depends upon functional and durable long term access to the peritoneal cavity; this depends on placement techniques and competent surgeons and psychosocial support to the patient. The various technical tips and manoeuvres elaborated here should be considered options carried out to improve outcome and reduce catheter dysfunction.