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

The effect of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start hemodialysis on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recently, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested in place of urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these methods is still unclear. This study compared the outcomes of urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD in CKD patients.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar databases, and Cochrane Library, up to 30th July 2023 for studies reporting data on all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included dialysis-related infectious and mechanical complications. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nine eligible studies involving 941 PD and 779 HD patients were analyzed. Pooled analysis demonstrated elevated risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.09), dialysis-related infectious complications (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.07), and mechanical complications (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.13) in patients undergoing urgent-start HD than in patients on urgent-start PD.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that CKD patients that received urgent-start HD are at increased risk of all-cause mortality and infectious, and mechanical complications that are associated with the dialysis than patients that received urgent-start PD. These findings have to be considered when making treatment decisions for patients with acute kidney injury. Better understanding of the mechanism of these differences may help to create guidelines for more informed clinical practices.

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

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.

Cardiac Surgery Outcomes in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis Versus Peritoneal Dialysis

Rationale & Objective

We sought to compare outcomes of patients receiving dialysis after cardiothoracic surgery on the basis of dialysis modality (intermittent hemodialysis [HD] vs peritoneal dialysis [PD]).

Study Design

This was a retrospective analysis.

Setting & Participants

In total, 590 patients with kidney failure receiving intermittent HD or PD undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or valvular cardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic were included.

Exposure

The patients received PD versus HD (intermittent or continuous).

Outcomes

Our primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, days in the intensive care unit, the number of intraoperative blood transfusions, postsurgical pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infection, and a composite of the following 4 in-hospital events: death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection.

Analytical Approach

We used χ2, Fisher exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and t tests, Kaplan-Meier survival, and plots for analysis.

Results

Among the 590 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 62 (11%) were receiving PD, and 528 (89%) were receiving intermittent HD. Notably, 30-day Kaplan-Meier survival was 95.7% (95% CI: 93.9-97.5) for HD and 98.2% (95% CI: 94.7-100) for PD (P = 0.30). In total, 75 patients receiving HD (14.2%) and 1 patient receiving PD (1.6%) had a composite of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection) (P = 0.005). Out of 62 patients receiving PD, 16 (26%) were converted to HD.

Limitations

Retrospective analyses are prone to residual confounding. We lacked details about nutritional data. Intensive care unit length of stay was used as a surrogate for volume status control. Patients have been followed in a single health care system. The HD cohort outnumbered the PD cohort significantly.

Conclusions

When compared with PD, HD does not appear to improve outcomes of patients with kidney failure undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Patients receiving PD had a lower incidence of a composite outcome of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infections).

Comparison of the effect of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of end-stage renal disease

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients.

Methods

Clinical data of ESRD patients who received HD (n=74) and PD (n=77) for more than 12 months in the First People's Hospital of Tonglu County from October 2020 to November 2021 were retrospectively selected. Renal function indexes, blood pressure, and complication rates in the two groups before the first dialysis and at the end of the observation period were compared.

Results

After the dialysis, the urea nitrogen (BUN) levels decreased in both groups, and were significantly lower in the PD group compared to the HD group. Urea clearance index (Kt/V) increased, and were significantly higher in the PD group compared to the HD group (P<0.05). After the dialysis, albumin (ALB) and cardiac ejection fraction (EF) levels significantly increased, and ALB levels were significantly higher in the HD group while EF levels were significantly higher in the PD group (P<0.05). Levels of whole parathyroid hormone (iPTH), systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure indicators in both groups decreased compared to before the dialysis, and were significantly lower in the PD group compared to the HD group of patients (P<0.05). PD was associated with significantly lower total incidence of complications compared to HD (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Peritoneal dialysis is more effective in maintaining the hemodynamic stability for ESRD patients, reducing blood pressure level, improving the clearance rate of molecular substances, and protecting the renal function of patients compared to hemodialysis.

Urgent Implantation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Kidney Injury-A Review

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and sudden exacerbation of chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently necessitate urgent kidney replacement therapy (UKRT). Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is recognized as a viable modality for managing such patients. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) may be associated with an increased number of complications and is rarely utilized. This review examines recent literature investigating the clinical outcomes of USPD in CKD and AKI. Relevant research was identified through searches of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Included studies focused on the emergency use of peritoneal dialysis in CKD or AKI and reported treatment outcomes. While no official recommendations exist for catheter implantation in USPD, the impact of the technique itself on outcomes was found to be less significant compared with the post-implantation factors. USPD represents a safe and effective treatment modality for AKI, although complications such as catheter malfunctions, leakage, and peritonitis were observed. Furthermore, USPD demonstrated efficacy in managing CKD, although it was associated with a higher incidence of complications compared to conventional-start peritoneal dialysis. Despite its cost-effectiveness, PD requires greater technical expertise from medical professionals. Close supervision and pre-planning for catheter insertion are essential for CKD patients. Whenever feasible, an urgent start should be avoided. Nevertheless, in emergency scenarios, USPD does remain a safe and efficient approach.

Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: an oasis harnessed-experience and results at a tertiary care centre in India

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis is a life sustaining renal replacement therapy for patients with end stage renal disease. In comparison to hemodialysis it offers better mobility and independence to patients. A number of techniques including open, laparoscopic and fluoroscopy guided, and their modifications, have been described for intraperitoneal catheter insertion. We describe our technique and results of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion at a tertiary care centre in India.

CASE SERIES

48 patients were referred from the department of nephrology at our centre for laparoscopic PD catheter insertion. A two port technique was used in 37 patients and three port technique was implemented in the rest for simultaneous adhesiolysis and/or omentectomy. A straight tip catheter was tunneled through the rectus muscle in all patients. Two patients had incisional hernia from a previous abdominal surgery which was repaired concomitantly with onlay meshplasty.

RESULTS

The operative time ranged between 20 and 35 min under general anaesthesia. Three patients were subjected to urgent start dialysis of which one patient developed peridrain leak as an early complication which was managed conservatively. All other patients were commenced on peritoneal dialysis two weeks after surgery. There was no other surgical site occurrence or episodes of peritonitis reported in a 6 month follow up period with the department of nephrology.

CONCLUSION

In the era of minimal access surgery, the laparoscopic approach is feasible for widespread and safe use for PD catheter insertion. The benefits of PD can thus be made available to patients at civil hospitals even with a basic laparoscopy setup.

Safety of a 24-h-or-less break-in period in elderly patients undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) had to undergo urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD). This study aimed to determine whether break-in period (BI) within 24 h was feasible in elderly patients undergoing USPD.

METHODS

Patients with ESRD who underwent PD at five hospitals were screened. Patients were divided into the BI ≤24 h and >24 h groups. Complications were compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine whether BI ≤24 h was associated with complications.

RESULTS

A total of 175 elderly patients were included: BI ≤24 h group, 78; and BI >24 h group, 97. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for complications (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Starting PD within 24 h after PD catheter insertion was feasible in elderly ESRD patients.

Evaluation of complications in urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Patients who were urgent start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) were evaluated in terms of complications.

METHODS

The data from 102 patients (43 males and 59 females, mean age 58.18 ± 15.3 years) who were on peritoneal dialysis with a placed catheter between January 2014 and June 2019 in our Nephrology clinic was evaluated. The patients were divided into three groups according to the starting time of peritoneal dialysis. The development of complications between the groups (peritonitis, leakage, hernia), hemodialysis return time and overall survival times were compared.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups in terms of survival and complications. Diabetes, advanced age, albumin values were found to be risk factors for mortality, while no differences were found between the groups in terms of complications and mortality.

CONCLUSION

USPD can be recommended for both because it provides a permanent dialysis option and because it leads to fewer complications than urgent start HD.

Impact of unplanned peritoneal dialysis start on patients' outcomes-A multicenter cohort study

Background

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who start unplanned dialysis therapy are more likely to be treated with hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter, which has been associated with a greater risk of infections and other complications, as well as with a higher long-term risk of death. Urgent-start PD is an alternative that has been suggested as an option for starting dialysis in these cases, with potentially better patient outcomes. However, the definition of urgent-start PD is not homogeneous, and no study, to our knowledge, has compared clinical outcomes among urgent start, early start, and conventional start of PD. In this study, we aimed to compare these types of initiation of dialysis therapy in terms of a composite outcome of patient survival and technique failure.

Methods

This is a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study, involving data from 122 PD clinics in Brazil. We used the following: Urgent-start groups refer to patients who initiated PD within 72 h after the PD catheter insertion; early-start groups are those starting PD from 72 h to 2 weeks after the catheter insertion; and conventional-start groups are those who used the PD catheter after 2 weeks from its insertion. We analyzed the composite endpoint of all causes of patient's mortality and technique failure (within the initial 90 days of PD therapy) using the following three different statistical models: multivariate Cox, Fine and Gay competing risk, and a multilevel model.

Results

We included 509 patients with valid data across 68 PD clinics. There were 38 primary outcomes, comprising 25 deaths and 13 technique failures, with a total follow-up time of 1,393.3 months. Urgent-start PD had no association with the composite endpoint in all three models.

Conclusion

Unplanned PD seems to be a safe and feasible option for treatment for patients with non-dialysis ESKD in urgent need of dialysis.

Early and Late Patient Outcomes in Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Prospective Study of Unplanned Initiation of Chronic Dialysis

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has become a well-established complementary alternative to hemodialysis (HD) as the first-line renal replacement modality. Unlike the temporary catheter for hemodialysis that can be used immediately after implementation, the PD catheter usage period remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes in patients under peritoneal dialysis according to the delay of starting the dialysis after catheter placement.

Methods: This observational prospective study was conducted over an eight-year and four-month period (from April 2014 to August 2021), including all patients treated with peritoneal dialysis for 18 months (from April 2014 to October 2015). The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the catheter was used during the first 15 days (PD-E) or 15 days after (PD-L) catheter placement. The primary outcomes were early complications (mechanical and infectious) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included technique survival.

Results: Among the 36 patients included in the study, 14 started PD early (38.8%), while 22 started it 15 days after catheter placement (61.2%). The mean age between the two groups was not significantly different (41 ± 17 years vs 35 ± 16 years, p: not significant). There were no significant differences in the Charlson comorbidity index or the degree of autonomy. The incidence of infections was not significantly different between the two groups (13.6% in PD-L vs 21.4% in PD-E, p: not significant). The total number of mechanical complications was not significantly higher in the PD-E group compared to the PD-L group (42.8% vs 27.3%, respectively, p: not significant). Kaplan-Meier estimates of technique survival were comparable between the groups (log Rank: 1.908, p: 0.67).

Conclusions: Our study showed no increase in the risk of complications associated with early use of the PD catheter and no difference in technique survival. PD can be used as first-line renal replacement therapy in the unplanned initiation of chronic dialysis.

Peritoneal dialysis in the modern era

The practice and clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated significant improvement over the past 20 years. The aim of this review is to increase awareness and update healthcare professionals on current PD practice, especially with respect to patient and technique survival, patient modality selection, pathways onto PD, understanding patient experience of care and use prior to kidney transplantation. These improvements have been impacted, at least in part, by greater emphasis on shared decision-making in dialysis modality selection, the use of advanced laparoscopic techniques for PD catheter implantation, developments in PD connecting systems, glucose-sparing strategies, and modernising technology in managing automated PD patients remotely. Evidence-based clinical guidelines such as those prepared by national and international societies such as the International Society of PD have contributed to improved PD practice underpinned by a recognition of the place of continuous quality improvement processes.

Automated peritoneal dialysis as a cost-effective urgent-start dialysis option for ESRD patients: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported the feasibility of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) as an alternative to hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, the cost-effectiveness of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) as an urgent-start dialysis modality has not been directly evaluated, especially in China.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who required urgent-start dialysis at a single center from March 2019 to November 2020. Patients were grouped according to their urgent-start dialysis modality (APD and HD). Urgent-start dialysis conducted until 14 days after PD catheter insertion. Then, PD was maintained. Each patient was followed until July 2021 or death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was the incidence of short-term dialysis-related complications. The secondary outcome was the cost and duration of the initial hospitalization. Technique survival, peritonitis-free or bacteriamia-free survival and patient survival were also compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included in the study, of whom 36 (52.9%) patients were in APD group. Mean follow-up duration was 20.1 months. Compared with the HD group, the APD group had significantly fewer short-term dialysis-related complications. The cost of initial hospitalization was also significantly lower in APD patients. There was no significant difference between APD and HD patients with respect to duration of the initial hospitalization, technique survival rate, peritonitis-free or bacteriemia-free survival rate, and patient survival rate.

CONCLUSION

Among ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis, APD as urgent-start dialysis modality, compared with HD using a CVC, resulted in fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and lower cost.

Comparison of planned-start, early-start and deferred-start strategies for peritoneal dialysis initiation in end-stage kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) suitable for peritoneal dialysis (PD), PD should ideally be planned and initiated electively (planned-start PD). If patients present late, some centres initiate PD immediately with an urgent-start PD strategy. However, as urgent-start PD is resource intensive, we evaluated another strategy where patients first undergo emergent haemodialysis (HD), followed by early PD catheter insertion, and switch to PD 48-72 hours after PD catheter insertion (early-start PD). Conventionally, late-presenting patients are often started on HD, followed by deferred PD catheter insertion before switching to PD≥14 days after catheter insertion (deferred start PD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of new ESKD patients, comparing the planned-start, early-start and deferred-start PD strategies. Outcomes within 1 year of dialysis initiation were studied.

RESULTS

Of 148 patients, 57 (38.5%) patients had planned-start, 23 (15.5%) early-start and 68 (45.9%) deferred-start PD. Baseline biochemical parameters were similar except for a lower serum urea with planned-start PD. No significant differences were seen in the primary outcomes of technique and patient survival across all 3 subgroups. Compared to planned-start PD, early-start PD had a shorter time to catheter migration (hazard ratio [HR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-121.04, P=0.016) while deferred-start PD has a shorter time to first peritonitis (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.03-6.01, P=0.043) and first hospital admission (HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.35-3.07, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Planned-start PD is the best PD initiation strategy. However, if this is not possible, early-start PD is a viable alternative. Catheter migration may be more frequent with early-start PD but does not appear to impact technique survival.

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 vs. planned peritoneal dialysis initiation: complications and outcomes in the first year of therapy

INTRODUCTION

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (US-PD) has been proposed as a safe modality of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with an indication for emergency dialysis initiation. We aimed to compare the characteristics, 30-day complications, and clinical outcomes of US-PD and planned peritoneal dialysis (Plan-PD) patients over the first year of therapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study that included incident adult patients followed for up to one year. US-PD was considered when incident patients started therapy within 7 days after Tenckhoff catheter implantation. Plan-PD group consisted of patients who started therapy after the breaking period (15 days). Mechanical and infectious complications were compared 30 days from PD initiation. Hospitalization and technique failure during the first 12 months on PD were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and the determinants were calculated by Cox regression models.

RESULTS

All patients starting PD between October/2016 and November/2019 who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analyzed. We evaluated 137 patients (70 in the US-PD x 67 Plan-PD). The main complications in the first 30 days were catheter tip migration (7.5% Plan-PD x 4.3% US-PD - p= 0.49) and leakage (4.5% Plan-PD x 5.7% US-PD - p=0.74). Most catheters were placed using the Seldinger technique. The main cause of dropout was death in US-PD patients (15.7%) and transfer to HD in Plan-PD patients (13.4%). The occurrence of complications in the first 30 days was the only risk factor for dropout (OR = 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.03). Hospitalization rates and technique survival were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The lack of significant differences in patients' outcomes between groups reinforces that PD is a safe and applicable dialysis method in patients who need immediate dialysis.

Risk factors for early death in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Assess risk factors for early death in patients who underwent urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD).

METHODS

Patients who initiated USPD in five peritoneal dialysis centers from 2013 to 2019 were screened in this multicenter retrospective cohort study. Risk factors for all-cause mortality within 3 months were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 USPD patients with 43 early deaths were included. Cox regression analyses showed that age older than 60 years (hazard ratio [HR], 3.054; 95% CI [1.597, 5.842]; p = 0.001), albumin less than 30 g/L (HR, 2.234; 95%CI [1.207, 4.136]; p = 0.011), blood glucose greater than 7 mmol/L (HR, 2.766; 95%CI [1.477, 5.180]; p = 0.001), higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; HR, 1.121; 95%CI [1.071, 1.172]; p = 0.000), and poor stages of heart failure (class IV compared with class 0-I; HR, 5.165; 95%CI [2.544, 10.486]; p = 0.000) were independent predicting factors for early death.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for early death were older age, hypoproteinemia, hyperglycemia, higher eGFR, and severe heart failure.

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.

Comparison of mortality and complications between urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The advantages of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) vis-à-vis urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) are not clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the two modalities. Databases of PubMed, Embase, Ovoid, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 1, 2020. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were dialysis-related infectious complications and mechanical complications. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for all outcomes. Seven studies were included. The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant reduced risk of all-cause mortality in patients undergoing urgent-start PD as compared to urgent-start HD (RR: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.40, 0.94], I²  = 56.34%). A meta-analysis of dialysis-related infectious complications indicated no statistically significant difference between the two modalities (RR: 0.66, 95% CI [0.29, 1.50], I²  = 69.62%). Our analysis revealed a statistically significant reduced risk of mechanical complications in patients undergoing urgent-start PD (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.40, 0.73], I²  = 0%). To conclude, unadjusted data from observational studies are indicative of lower mortality and lower risk of mechanical complications with urgent-start PD versus urgent-start HD. The risk of infectious complications was not different between the two groups. Further studies with a larger sample size using propensity-matched cohorts are needed to strengthen current evidence.

Eligibility and patient barriers to peritoneal dialysis in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing in Kenya and is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. While definitive treatment is renal transplantation, many patients require kidney replacement therapy with haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). The predominant modality utilized in Kenya is currently HD. There is a need to explore why PD remains underutilized and whether patient factors may be contributory to barriers that limit the uptake of PD.

METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study where patients with advanced CKD were assessed by a multidisciplinary team for PD eligibility using a standardized tool. Contraindications and barriers to the modality were recorded as was the presence or absence of support for the provision of PD. Demographic and clinical data were recorded using a standardized questionnaire. The impact of support on PD eligibility was determined.

RESULTS

We found that 68.9% patients were eligible for PD. Surgery-related abdominal scarring was the most common contraindication. Barriers to PD were identified in 45.9% and physical barriers were more common than cognitive barriers. Presence of support was associated with a significant increase in PD eligibility (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of eligibility for PD in this study was similar to that found in other populations. Surgical-related factors were the most commonly identified contraindication. Physical and cognitive barriers were commonly identified and may be overcome by the presence of support for PD.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I² = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I² = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Early-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a Chinese cohort study on outcome

Background

Early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective option for patients need unplanned dialysis. However, there are few studies on the long-term prognosis of early-start PD patients.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 635 eligible patients from 1 March 1996 to 30 September 2016 were included, and divided into three groups according to the duration of break-in period: 3 days or less, 4–13 days and more than 14 days. Patients started PD within 2 weeks and after 2 weeks were defined as early-start and conventional-start, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome measures were peritonitis free survival and technical survival. Mechanical and infectious complications in the first 180 days were also analyzed.

Results

Early-start PD patients were more likely to have higher serum total carbon dioxide and creatinine levels and lower serum albumin, Kt/v, creatinine clearance (Ccr) and residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) levels at the start of PD. The median follow-up period was 30 months (interquartile range, 13-53 months). A worse survival was observed in the early-start group than that in the conventional-start group (p < 0.001), even adjustment for the covariates (HR 1.549, 95%CI 1.104–2.173, p = 0.011). In the subgroup analysis, in patients commencing PD after 2006 early-start and conventional-start PD patients had comparable survival. No differences were observed in the rate of infectious and mechanical complications, peritonitis-free survival and technique survival between early-start and conventional-start PD patients.

Conclusions

Early-start PD could be a safe and effective strategy for patients needing unplanned dialysis initiation with the progress of technology on PD.

Factors Associated With Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Complications in ESRD

INTRODUCTION

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with newly diagnosed end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a well-tolerated alternative to hemodialysis (HD). The primary aim of this study was to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of ESRD patients, as well as the presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical factors associated with urgent-start PD complications.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional observational study was performed on 102 patients with ESRD who merited urgent-start PD from January 2015 to June 2019. The primary clinical outcome measures were catheter leakage, dysfunction, and peritonitis, whereas the secondary outcomes were catheter removal, repositioning, and death. Statistical inferences were made with the χ2 or Fisher's exact test and independent samples t tests.

RESULTS

One hundred two subjects (65 men, 63.7%) 56.2 ± 15.1 years old were included in this study; 64 of the subjects had diabetes and hypertension (62.7%). Catheter leakage occurred in 8 patients (7.8%), catheter dysfunction in 27 patients (26.5%), and peritonitis in 14 patients (13.7%); meanwhile, catheter removal occurred in 6 patients (5.9%), catheter repositioning in 21 patients (20.6%), and death in 3 patients (2.9%). Peritonitis was associated with younger age (i.e., 47.0 ± 16.8 vs. 57.6 ± 14.4 years; P = 0.014; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2-19.1; odds ratio [OR] 0.96; P = 0.018; 95% CI: 0.92-099), higher creatinine levels upon admission (i.e., 20.2 ± 9.8 vs. 14.1 ± 8.3; P = 0.014; 95% CI: -10.9 to -1.2), and heart failure (OR 4.79; P = 0.043; 95% CI: 1.05-21.88). Patients with abdominal hernia were 7.5 times more likely to have their catheter leak (OR 7.5; P = 0.036; 95% CI: 1.14-49.54). Catheter removal was associated with obesity (i.e., body mass index [BMI] of 31.6 ± 4.1 vs. 25.9 ± 4.9; P = 0.007; 95% CI: -9.8 to -1.6; OR 1.26; P = 0.013; 95% CI: 1.05-1.51) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease glomerular filtration rate (MDRD-GFR) (i.e., 2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 3.7 ± 2.3; P = 0.003; 95% CI: 0.5-1.9).

CONCLUSION

Peritonitis was associated with younger age, higher creatinine levels upon admission, and heart failure; meanwhile, catheter removal was linked to obesity and lower glomerular filtration rate. Compared with previous reports, our study included patients in which PD was initiated shortly after catheter insertion, making the intervention a true urgent-start PD. This study contributes to the existing urgent-start PD literature by providing evidence that urgent-start PD with catheter opening within 72 hours has limited complications, making it a relatively safe option.

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.

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.

Setting Up and Expanding a Home Dialysis Program: Is There a Recipe for Success?

Home dialysis modalities remain significantly underused in the United States despite similar overall survival in the modalities, and recent incentives to expand these modalities. Although the absolute number of patients using home modalities has grown, the proportion compared to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) continues to remain quite low. Well known barriers to home dialysis utilization exist, and an organized and team-based approach is required to overcome these barriers. Herein, we describe our efforts at growing our home dialysis program at a large academic medical center, with the proportion of home dialysis patients growing from 12% to 21% over the past 9 years. We prioritized individualized education for patients and better training for physicians, with the help of existing resources, aimed at better utilization of home modalities; an example includes dedicated dialysis education classes taught twice monthly by an experienced nurse practitioner, as well as the utilization of the dialysis educator from a dialysis provider for inpatient education of patients with CKD. The nephrology fellowship curriculum was restructured with emphasis on home modalities, and participation in annual home dialysis conferences has been encouraged. For timely placement and troubleshooting of access for dialysis, we followed a complementary team approach using surgeons and interventional radiologists and nephrologists, driven by a standardized protocol developed at UAB, and comanaged by our access coordinators. A team-based approach, with emphasis on staff engagement and leadership opportunities for dialysis nurses as well as collaborative efforts from a team of clinical nephrologists and the dialysis provider helped maintain efficiency, kindle growth, and provide consistently high-quality clinical care in the home program. Lastly, efforts at reducing burden of disease such as decreased number of monthly visits as well as using innovative strategies, such as telenephrology and assisted PD and HHD, were instrumental in reducing attrition.

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.

Regulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition via sonic hedgehog/glioma-associated oncogene homolog 1 signaling pathway in peritoneal mesothelial cells

Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling regulating epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in cultured rat peritoneal mesothelial cells (PMCs) remains an under-investigated topic. The current study aimed to elucidate the role of Shh signaling in the regulation of EMT in PMCs to attenuate peritoneal injury, with the view of enhancing the efficacy of peritoneal dialysis (PD). PMCs were initially extracted from male Wistar rats using pancreatic enzyme digestion. The expression of Shh and glioma-associated oncogene homolog (Gli1) was quantitatively analyzed using the reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and western blot analysis. Migration of PMCs was determined using Transwell assay. The expression of Shh, Gli1, and EMT markers including α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), fibronectin, collagen I, snail1, and E-cadherin was examined by RT-qPCR, western blot analysis, and immunofluorescence respectively. High glucose induction was identified to promote cell migration and increase the expression of Shh and Gli1 in a dose- and time-dependent manner in rat PMCs. Cyclopamine (CPN) was observed to block the Shh signaling induced by high glucose, accompanied by cell migration inhibition, decreased expression of α-SMA, fibronectin, collagen I and snail1 as well as increased expression of E-cadherin. Altogether, overexpression of Gli1 by transfected Gli1 plasmid promotes cell migration and upregulates α-SMA, fibronectin, Snail1, and collagen I expression, while downregulating E-cadherin expression. Shh/Gli1 signaling is important in mediating EMT in rat PMCs, which provides a potential novel therapeutic approach for clinical investigation on renal failure treatment.

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.

Urgent-start dialysis: Comparison of complications and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the viability and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start renal replacement therapy (RRT). This study aimed to compare infectious and mechanical complications related to urgent-start PD and HD. Secondary outcomes were to identify risk factors for complications and mortality related to urgent-start dialysis.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study with incident patients receiving PD and HD in a Brazilian university hospital, between July 2014 and December 2017. Subjects included individuals with final-stage chronic kidney disease who required immediate RRT, that is, HD through central venous catheter or PD in which the catheter was implanted by a nephrologist and utilized for 72 h, without previous training. Patients with PD were subjected, initially, to high-volume PD for metabolic compensation. After hospital discharge, they remained in intermittent PD in the dialysis unit until training was completed. Mechanical and infectious complications were compared, as well as the recovery of renal function and survival.

RESULTS

In total, 93 patients were included in PD and 91 in HD. PD and HD groups were similar regarding age (58 ± 17 vs. 60 ± 15 years; p = 0.49), frequency of diabetes mellitus (37.6% vs. 50.5%; p = 0.10), other comorbidities (74.1% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.67) and biochemical parameters at the beginning of RRT, that is, creatinine (9.1 ± 4.1 vs. 8.0 ± 2.8; p = 0.09), serum albumin (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = 0.06) and haemoglobin (9.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 2.0; p = 0.44). After a minimum follow-up period of 180 days and a maximum follow-up period of 2 years, there was no difference regarding mechanical complications (24.7% vs. 37.4%; p = 0.06) or bacteraemia (15.0% vs. 24.0%; p = 0.11); however, there was a difference regarding infection of the exit site (25.8% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.04) and diuresis maintenance [700 (0-1500) vs. 0 (0-500); p < 0.001], with better results in the PD group. There was better phosphorus control at 180 days in the PD group (62.4% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.008), with a lower requirement for phosphate binder usage (28% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), erythropoietin (18.3% vs. 49.5%; p < 0.001) and anti-hypertensives (11.8% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.003). Time to death was similar between groups. In the multivariate analysis, PD was a predictor of renal function recovery [odds ratio: 3.95 (1.01-15.4)].

CONCLUSION

PD is a viable and safe alternative to HD in a scenario of urgent-start RRT with complication rates and outcomes similar to those of HD, highlighting the results regarding renal function recovery.

Complications and outcomes of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease in China: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the complications and survival of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who received urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) or urgent-start haemodialysis (USHD), and to explore the value of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the emergent dialysis method for elderly patients with ESRD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two tertiary care hospitals in Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Chinese patients (n=542) >65 years of age with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤15 mL/min/m2 who received urgent-start dialysis between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2015, and with at least 3 months of treatment. Patients who converted to other dialysis methods, regardless of the initial dialysis method, were excluded, as well as those with comorbidities that could significantly affect their dialysis outcomes.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Dialysis-related complications and survival were compared. Patients were followed until death, stopped PD, transfer to other dialysis centres, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2016.

RESULTS

There were 309 patients in the USPD group and 233 in the USHD group. The rate of dialysis-related complications within 30 days after catheter implantation was significantly lower in the USPD group compared with the USHD group (4.5% vs 10.7%, p=0.031). The 6-month and 1, 2 and 3-year survival rates were 95.3%, 91.4%, 86.6% and 64.8% in the USPD group, and 92.2%, 85.7%, 70.2% and 57.8% in the USHD group, respectively (p=0.023). The multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that USHD (HR=2.220, 95% CI 1.298 to 3.790; p=0.004), age (HR=1.025, 95% CI 1.013 to 1.043, p<0.001) and hypokalaemia (HR=0.678, 95% CI 0.487 to 0.970; p=0.032) were independently associated with death.

CONCLUSIONS

USPD was associated with slightly better survival compared with USHD. USPD was associated with fewer complications and better survival than USHD in elderly patients with ESRD.

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

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

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.

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

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

Risk Factors for Unplanned Dialysis Initiation: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background:

Unplanned dialysis initiation is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Objective:

To determine common definitions and patient risk factors for unplanned dialysis.

Design:

Systematic review.

Setting:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2018.

Patients:

Studies that included incident chronic dialysis patients or patients with CKD that cited a definition or examined risk factors for unplanned dialysis were included.

Measurements:

Definitions and criteria for unplanned dialysis reported across studies. Patient characteristics associated with unplanned dialysis.

Methods:

Two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized data abstraction form and assessed study quality using a modified New Castle Ottawa Scale.

Results:

From 2797 citations, 48 met eligibility criteria. Reported definitions for unplanned dialysis were variable. Most publications cited dialysis initiation under emergency conditions and/or with a central venous catheter. The association of patient characteristics with unplanned dialysis was reported in 26 studies, 18 were retrospective and 21 included incident dialysis patients. The most common risk factors in univariate analyses were (number of studies) increased age (n = 7), cause of kidney disease (n = 6), presence of cardiovascular disease (n = 7), lower serum hemoglobin (n = 9), lower serum albumin (n = 10), higher serum phosphate (n = 6), higher serum creatinine or lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at dialysis initiation (n = 7), late referral (n = 5), lack of dialysis education (n = 6), and lack of follow-up in a predialysis clinic prior to dialysis initiation (n = 5). A minority of studies performed multivariable analyses (n = 10); the most common risk factors were increased age (n = 4), increased comorbidity score (n = 3), late referral (n = 5), and lower eGFR at dialysis initiation (n = 3).

Limitations:

Comparison of results across studies was limited by inconsistent definitions for unplanned dialysis. High-quality data on patient risk factors for unplanned dialysis are lacking.

Conclusions:

Well-designed prospective studies to determine modifiable risk factors are needed. The lack of a consensus definition for unplanned dialysis makes research and quality improvement initiatives in this area more challenging.

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

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

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.

Urgent Start Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis Leads to Reduction of Catheter-Related Infection and Increased Peritoneal Dialysis Penetration

BACKGROUND

Noncuffed catheters (NCC) are often used for incident hemodialysis (HD) patients without a functional vascular access. This, unfortunately results in frequent catheter-related complications such as infection, malfunction, vessel stenosis, and obstruction, leading to loss of permanent central venous access with superior vena cava obstruction. It is important to preserve central vein patency by reducing the number of internal jugular catheter insertions for incident HD patients with a functional vascular access. We sought to achieve this by introducing in-patient intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD) as bridging therapy while awaiting establishment of long-term vascular access for HD patients.

METHODS

Incident HD patients without permanent vascular access encountered from January to December 2014 were included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 were encountered within 6 months prior to introduction of in-patient IPD bridging therapy in substitution of noncuffed catheter (NCC) insertion while awaiting maturation of permanent vascular access. Group 2 were encountered within 6 months after the introduction of this policy. The number of NCC and peritoneal dialysiscatheter insertion, along with catheter-related infections were evaluated during this period.

RESULTS

Approximately 450 patients were distributed in each group. We achieved 45% reduction in internal jugular catheter insertion from 322 to 180 catheters after policy change. This led to a significant drop in catheter-related blood stream infection (53%, P <0.001). On the other hand, 30% more peritoneal dialysiscatheter were inserted to accommodate our IPD bridging therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of IPD as bridging therapy while awaiting maturation of permanent vascular access significantly reduced the utilization of NCC in incident HD patients and catherter-related blodstream infection. With this, it is our hope that it will contribute to the preservation of central vein patency.

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.

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.