Early technical complications and long-term survival of urgent peritoneal dialysis according to break-in periods

Percutaneous Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters

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

Comparison of Unplanned/Urgent-Start Versus Conventional-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation, whether conventional-start (planned) or urgent-start (unplanned), may impact the outcomes of PD and the rate of associated complications in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of unplanned/urgent-start PD versus conventional-start PD in this cohort of patients. Electronic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases was done from inception until July 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of unplanned/urgent-start and conventional-start PD in CKD patients. Outcomes of interest included mechanical complications, post-procedure infections, mortality, and transfer to hemodialysis. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and the influence of individual studies on the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were evaluated. Twenty-seven studies were finally included in the review. The overall risk of post-procedure infectious was comparable for both PD initiation methods (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.83-1.34). Similarly, the risks for peritonitis and exit site infections did not differ significantly. However, urgent-start PD correlated with a significantly higher risk of overall mechanical complications (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23-2.34). Specifically, the risk for leaks was notably higher (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.67-3.65) in the urgent-start group compared to the conventional-start PD group. Urgent-start PD correlated with significantly increased mortality rates (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.39-2.41). There was no difference in the likelihood of technique survival and transfer to hemodialysis. Both urgent-start and conventional-start PD correlated with similar risks of overall infectious complications. Urgent-start PD resulted in significantly increased risks of mechanical complications and mortality. Our findings emphasize the need for meticulous planning and consideration when opting for PD initiation.

Prognosis of urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal timing for the initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after catheter placement.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

EXACT DATE OF DATA COLLECTION

From inception till July 31, 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess the outcomes and safety of unplanned PD initiation (<14/7 days after catheter insertion) in cohort studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 3054 participants were included. (1) The risk of unplanned initiation of leakage and Obstruction was no difference in both the break-in period (BI) <14 and BI < 7 groups. (2) Catheter displacement was more likely to occur in the emergency initiation group with BI < 7. (3) No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding infectious complications. (4) There was no difference in transition to HD between patients with BI < 7 and BI < 14 d.

CONCLUSION

Infectious complications of unplanned initiation of peritoneal dialysis did not differ from planned initiation. Emergency initiation in the BI < 7 group had higher catheter displacement, but heterogeneity was higher. There were no differences in leakage or obstruction in either group. Catheter survival was the same for emergency initiation of peritoneal dialysis compared with planned initiation of peritoneal dialysis and did not increase the risk of conversion to hemodialysis.

REGISTRATION

This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, number: CRD42023431369).

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.

Feasibility of a break-in period of less than 24 hours for urgent start peritoneal dialysis: a multicenter study

Purpose

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) is an effective therapeutic method for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, whether it is safe to initiate peritoneal dialysis (PD) within 24 h unclear. We examined the short-term outcomes of a break-in period (BI) of 24 h for patients undergoing USPD.

Methods

This real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort study evaluated USPD patients from five centers from January 2013 to August 2020. Patients were divided into BI ≤ 24 h or BI > 24 h groups. The Primary outcomes included incidence of mechanical and infectious complications. The secondary outcome was technique failure. Moreover, we presented a subgroup analysis for patients who did not receive temporary hemodialysis (HD).

Results

A total of 871 USPD patients were included: 470 in the BI ≤ 24 h and 401 in the BI > 24 h groups. Mechanical and infectious complications did not differ between the two groups across the follow-up timepoints (2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months) (p > 0.05). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that BI ≤ 24 h was not an independent risk factor for mechanical complications, catheter migration, or infectious complications (p > 0.05). A BI ≤ 24 h was not an independent significant risk factor for technique failure by multivariate Cox regression analysis (p > 0.05). The subgroup analysis of patients who did not receive temporary HD returned the same results.

Conclusion

Initiating PD within 24 h of catheter insertion was not associated with increased mechanical complications, infectious complications, or technique failures.

Break-in Period ≤24 Hours as an Option for Urgent-start Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal break-in period (BI) of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) initiation for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and diabetes is unclear. We aimed to explore the safety and applicability of a BI ≤24 h in patients with ESRD and diabetes.

METHODS

We used a retrospective cohort design wherein we recruited patients with ESRD and diabetes who underwent USPD at five institutions in China between January 2013 and August 2020. The enrolled patients were grouped according to BI. The primary outcomes were mechanical and infectious complication occurrences, whereas the secondary outcome was technique survival.

RESULTS

We enrolled 310 patients with diabetes, of whom 155 and 155 patients were in the BI ≤24 h and BI >24 h groups, respectively. The two groups showed a comparable incidence of infectious and mechanical complications within 6 months after catheter insertion (p>0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for mechanical or infectious complications. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed no statistically significant between-group differences in technique survival rates (p>0.05). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for technique failure.

CONCLUSION

USPD initiation with a BI ≤24 h may be safe and feasible for patients with ESRD and diabetes.

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.

Outcome and Safety of Unplanned-Start Peritoneal Dialysis according to Break-In Periods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The best timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation after catheter implantation is still controversial. It is necessary to explore whether there exists a waiting period to minimize the risk of complications.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were searched in multiple electronic databases published from inception to February 29, 2020, to identify cohort studies for evaluating the outcome and safety of unplanned-start PD (<14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies with a total of 2,401 patients were enrolled. We found that early-start PD was associated with higher prevalence of leaks (RR: 2.67, 95% CI, 1.55-4.61) and omental wrap (RR: 3.28, 95% CI, 1.14-9.39). Furthermore, patients of unplanned-start PD in APD group have higher risk of leaks, while those in CAPD group have a higher risk of leaks, omental wrap, and catheter malposition. In shorter break-in period (BI) group, the risk of suffering from catheter obstruction and malposition was higher for patients who started dialysis within 7 days after the surgery than for patients within 7-14 days. No significant differences were found in peritonitis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27) and exit-site infections (RR: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.72-1.75). However, shorter BI was associated with higher risk of mortality and transition to hemodialysis (HD) while worsen early technical survival, with pooled RR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.52-3.02), 1.42 (95% CI, 1.09-1.85) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that patients receiving unplanned-start PD may have higher risks of mechanical complications, transition to HD, and even mortality rate while worsening early technical survival, which may not be associated with infectious complications. Rigorous studies are required to be performed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.