Early Initiation of Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients Undergoing Surgical Implantation of Tenckhoff Catheters

Comparison of immediate-start peritoneal dialysis without break-in period and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a two-center retrospective audit

PURPOSE

Immediate-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has emerged as a strategy for patients in need of urgent dialysis. However, the ideal timing for initiating this procedure remains uncertain. In this study, we aimed to compare complications and outcomes between immediate-start PD and conventional-start PD.

METHODS

We performed a two-center retrospective cohort study between 1 January 2015 and 31 May 2020. Patients who underwent PD were divided into immediate-start PD (without break-in period) and conventional-start PD group (break-in period within at least 14 days). The primary outcomes were the incidence of the mechanical complications and infectious complication. The secondary outcomes were technique failure and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients (106 in the immediate-start PD group and 103 in the conventional-start PD group) were included. Immediate-start PD had significantly lower catheter malfunction or migration rate compare with conventional-start PD (2.8% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.003) but comparable rates of dialysate leaks, pleuroperitoneal leaks, and hemoperitoneum. Infectious complications (exit-site infection and peritonitis) were similar between groups. Technique survival was comparable (7.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.22), while immediate-start PD exhibited lower mortality rates (0.9% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Immediate-start PD appears to be a viable option for patients in need of urgent dialysis, with reduced catheter complications and comparable infectious complications and technique survival when compared to conventional-start PD.

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.

The association between embedded catheter implantation and hospitalization costs for peritoneal dialysis initiation: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Compared with the conventional peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion, embedding PD catheter implantation is one of the procedures for planned PD initiation. However, facilities where embedded PD catheter implantation is available are limited, and the impact of embedded PD catheter implantation on hospitalization cost and length of hospitalization is unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included 132 patients with PD initiation between 2005 and 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: 64 patients in the embedding group and 68 patients in the conventional insertion group. We created a multivariable generalized linear model (GLM) with the gamma family and log-link function to evaluate the association among catheter embedding, the duration and medical costs of hospitalization for PD initiation. We also evaluated the effect modification between age and catheter embedding.

RESULTS

Catheter embedding (β coefficient - 0.13 [95% confidence interval - 0.21, - 0.05]) and age (per 10 years 0.08 [0.03, 0.14]) were significantly associated with hospitalization costs. Catheter embedding (- 0.21 [- 0.32, - 0.10]) and age (0.11 [0.03, 0.19]) were also identified as factors significantly associated with length of hospitalization. The difference between the embedding group and the conventional insertion group in hospitalization costs for PD initiation (P for interaction = 0.060) and the length of hospitalization (P for interaction = 0.027) was larger in young-to-middle-aged patients than in elderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter embedding was associated with lower hospitalization cost and shorter length of hospitalization for PD initiation than conventional PD catheter insertion, especially in young-to-middle-aged patients.

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).

The influence of different peritoneal dialysis techniques on wound infection in patients with peritoneal dialysis tube

More and more research has started to investigate the effect of peritoneal dialysis treatment on the incidence of pericatheter wound complications in chronic kidney disease (CKD). This meta-study evaluated the effect of emergency peritoneal dialysis (EPD) with conventional peritoneal dialysis (CPD) in patients with catheter-related complications. We looked up 4 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, and analysed the data with RevMan 5. There were a total of 15 studies with 3034 participants. While the quality of the research included was fairly good, the evidence was mediocre. In the meta-analyses, the risk of leak in the conduit with PD was very high (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.72, 3.59, p < 0.00001). However, for those treated with urgent medical method prior to initiation of PD, the risk for peritonitis, catheter dysfunction and bleeding was similar compared with CPD. Based on limited information, immediate initiation of PDs is advised in order to increase the quality of life for people in urgent need, except if there is no consideration for loss of fluid. The low quality of the evidence is holding up the evidence. This research, however, is also informative because of the large number of available data. Consequently, additional high quality, large, randomized controlled studies are required to establish.

SAGES peritoneal dialysis access guideline update 2023

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been used for both de novo insertion and salvage of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters. Advanced laparoscopic, basic laparoscopic, open, and image-guided techniques have evolved as the most popular techniques. The aim of this guideline was to develop evidence-based guidelines that support surgeons, patients, and other physicians in decisions on minimally invasive peritoneal dialysis access and the salvage of malfunctioning catheters in both adults and children.

METHODS

A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons reviewed the literature since the prior guideline was published in 2014 and developed seven key questions in adults and four in children. After a systematic review of the literature, by the panel, evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.

RESULTS

After systematic review, data extraction, and evidence to decision meetings, the panel agreed on twelve recommendations for the peri-operative performance of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis access surgery and management of catheter dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the adult population, conditional recommendations were made in favor of: staged hernia repair followed by PD catheter insertion over simultaneous and traditional start over urgent start of PD when medically possible. Furthermore, the panel suggested advanced laparoscopic insertion techniques rather than basic laparoscopic techniques or open insertion. Conditional recommendations were made for either advanced laparoscopic or image-guided percutaneous insertion and for either nonoperative or operative salvage. A recommendation could not be made regarding concomitant clean-contaminated surgery in adults. In the pediatric population, conditional recommendations were made for either traditional or urgent start of PD, concomitant clean or clean-contaminated surgery and PD catheter placement rather than staged, and advanced laparoscopic placement rather than basic or open insertion.

Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair and Synchronous Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement: A Single-Center Experience

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a common method for treating end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Occurrence of inguinal hernia before and during PD is considered to be the main cause of treatment discontinuation, failure, and conversion to hemodialysis. In this study, we present a single-center experience about laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and synchronous PD catheter placement and evaluated the feasibility and outcomes. Methods: During May 2018 to May 2022, a total of 216 consecutive patients with ESRD underwent laparoscopic PD catheter placement. Among them, 41 patients (27.7%) with coexistent inguinal hernia were included in this study. Individual information, complications, recurrent and new-onset hernias, and catheter survival were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Forty-one patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair and synchronous PD catheter placement, 9 patients had bilateral inguinal hernia, and another 32 patients had unilateral inguinal hernia. The mean age was 46.49 years (range, 28-72 years), including 39 males and 2 females. There was no recurrent hernia and only 1 patient (2.4%) developed incisional hernia (trocar site hernia) which required hernia repair and discontinuation of PD. No postoperative complications were observed, such as bleeding, infection, and dialysate leakage. After a median follow-up of 37 months (20-58 months), there were no deaths and 97.6% (40/41) catheters were still working. Conclusions: Laparoscopic hernia repair and synchronous PD catheter placement is an effective and safe treatment for ESRD patients with coexisting inguinal hernia in virtue of low postoperative complications and high catheter survival.

Optimizing peritoneal dialysis initiation: A comparative cohort study of catheter placement methods for shortening break-in periods

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) guidelines recommend a 14-day break-in period after catheter placement, yet this period could be shortened with new insertion techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare percutaneous vs. surgical catheter insertion in a newly established PD program. The break-in period was intentionally shortened to <24 h to start PD almost immediately.

RESULTS

We included 223 subjects who underwent percutaneous (34%) or surgical (66%) catheter placement. Compared to the surgical group, the percutaneous group had a higher proportion of early dialysis initiation within 24 h (97% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), similar successful initiation rates (87% vs. 92%, p = 0.34), and shorter lengths of stay (12 [9-18] vs. 18 [14-22] days, p < 0.001). Percutaneous insertion increased the likelihood of successful PD initiation within 24 h (OR 74, 95% CI 31-182), without increasing major complications.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous placement could represent a cost-effective and efficient technique to shorten break-in periods.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis is an important form of kidney replacement therapy. Most patients presenting with an unplanned, urgent need for dialysis are prescribed haemodialysis, leading to peritoneal dialysis underutilisation. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis refers to treatment that is commenced within 2 weeks of catheter placement. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis represents an efficacious, cost-effective alternative to the conventional approach of commencing dialysis. There is a paucity of evidence to guide management, however experience with the technique is increasing. This article overviews the rationale and practical application of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.

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.

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.

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 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.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Is there room for more?

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still offered to a minor subset of patients. One way to increment the utilization rates of this technique is the early start of PD after catheter placement, but there are several concerns related to this approach.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis in a single-center; 52 patients, 34.6% of the patients started in the first 14 days after catheter placement (Urgent start Group - Group 1) and percentage started PD in a conventional mode (Non-urgent start Group - Group 2). Baseline data, short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes, mechanical complications and infectious episodes were compared among Groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, Group 1 had an higher Charlson Comobidity Index (CCI). Exchange volumes were significantly lower in Group 1, as expected. Short-term outcomes were equal except for iPTH and albumin, both lower in urgent-start Group (p<0.05). Episodes of leak, catheter dysfunction and rate of infections were similar among Groups (p>0.05). In Urgent-start Group we didn't observed a higher risk for the first peritonitis episode (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.24-1.99; p>0.05), higher dropout rate or risk to quit the technique (long rank test, p>0.05; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29-1.13; p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to our observations, urgent-start PD seems to be a valid and safe alternative to urgent hemodialysis with central venous catheter and should be offered to patients without major contraindications.

Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines 2019 Part 1 (Position paper of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy)

Approximately 10 years have passed since the Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines were formulated in 2009. Much evidence has been reported during the succeeding years, which were not taken into consideration in the previous guidelines, e.g., the next peritoneal dialysis PD trial of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) in Japan, the significance of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), the effects of icodextrin solution, new developments in peritoneal pathology, and a new international recommendation on a proposal for exit-site management. It is essential to incorporate these new developments into the new clinical practice guidelines. Meanwhile, the process of creating such guidelines has changed dramatically worldwide and differs from the process of creating what were “clinical practice guides.” For this revision, we not only conducted systematic reviews using global standard methods but also decided to adopt a two-part structure to create a reference tool, which could be used widely by the society’s members attending a variety of patients. Through a working group consensus, it was decided that Part 1 would present conventional descriptions and Part 2 would pose clinical questions (CQs) in a systematic review format. Thus, Part 1 vastly covers PD that would satisfy the requirements of the members of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT). This article is the duplicated publication from the Japanese version of the guidelines and has been reproduced with permission from the JSDT.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Is there room for more?

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still offered to a minor subset of patients. One way to increment the utilization rates of this technique is the early start of PD after catheter placement, but there are several concerns related to this approach.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis in a single-center; 52 patients, 34.6% of the patients started in the first 14 days after catheter placement (Urgent start Group - Group 1) and percentage started PD in a conventional mode (Non-urgent start Group - Group 2). Baseline data, short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes, mechanical complications and infectious episodes were compared among Groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, Group 1 had an higher Charlson Comobidity Index (CCI). Exchange volumes were significantly lower in Group 1, as expected. Short-term outcomes were equal except for iPTH and albumin, both lower in urgent-start Group (p<0.05). Episodes of leak, catheter dysfunction and rate of infections were similar among Groups (p>0.05). In Urgent-start Group we didn't observed a higher risk for the first peritonitis episode (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.24-1.99; p>0.05), higher dropout rate or risk to quit the technique (long rank test, p>0.05; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29-1.13; p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to our observations, urgent-start PD seems to be a valid and safe alternative to urgent hemodialysis with central venous catheter and should be offered to patients without major contraindications.

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.

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.

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.

Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation with no break-in period: A viable option for patients requiring unplanned urgent-start peritoneal dialysis

Background

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is applied to patients who need PD within two weeks but are able to wait for more than 48 hours before starting PD. To evaluate the usefulness of percutaneous PD catheter insertion in urgent-start PD, we reviewed the clinical outcomes of percutaneous catheter insertion with immediate start PD and surgical insertion with longer break-in time in Pusan National University Hospital.

Methods

This study included 177 patients who underwent urgent-start PD. Based on the PD catheter insertion techniques, the patients with urgent-start PD were divided into percutaneous (n = 103) and surgical (n = 74) groups. For the percutaneous group, a modified Seldinger percutaneous catheter insertion with immediate initiation of continuous ambulatory PD was performed by nephrologists.

Results

The percutaneous group showed higher serum urea nitrogen, creatinine, and lower serum albumin compared with the surgical group (P < 0.05). Ninety-day infectious and mechanical complications showed no significant differences between the two groups. Ninety-day peritonitis in the percutaneous group was 9.7% compared to 5.4% in the surgical group (P = not significant [NS]). Major leakage was 3.9% in the percutaneous group compared to 1.4% in the surgical group (P = NS). Overall infectious and mechanical complication-free survival was not significantly different between the two groups. The percutaneous group and surgical group showed no statistical difference with respect to catheter survival over the entire observation period (P = NS).

Conclusion

This study suggests that urgent-start PD can be applied safely with percutaneous catheter insertion by nephrologists with no break-in period.

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.

A Simple Tenckhoff Catheter Placement Technique for Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) Using the Bandung Method

Insertion of Tenckhoff catheters for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis by nephrologists remains uncommon in most developing countries, including Indonesia. The aim of this study is to describe our experience on a simple technique of Tenckhoff catheter insertion by a nephrologist called the Bandung method. We conducted a retrospective observational study from May 2012 until December 2018 in 230 patients with end-stage renal disease using the Bandung method, a blind percutaneous insertion approach modified from the Seldinger technique. Early complications after insertion were assessed. The mean age of patients was 47.28 years (range 14–84 years). Within 1 month after insertion, complications occurred in 34 patients: 13 (5.7%) malposition, 8 (3.5%) omental trapping, 6 (2.6%) outlow failure, 3 (1.3%) peritonitis, 1 (0.4%) catheter infections, 1 (0.4%) bleeding, 1 (0.4%) kinking, and 1 (0.4%) hernia. None of these complications led to catheter removal. One patient experienced a late (>1 month) post-insertion complication of malposition that could not be repositioned and led to catheter removal. The Bandung method is a simple, cost effective, and minimally invasive technique for Tenckhoff catheter insertion that is associated with the same rate of complications compared to other techniques. This technique may useful for application in developing countries.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis compared with planned peritoneal dialysis and with urgent-start hemodialysis

An increasing number of studies have focused on whether peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be used for the urgent initiation of dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and safety of urgent-start PD compared with those of planned PD and urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in this population. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies. Conference abstracts were also searched in relevant websites. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 15 trials involving 2426 participants were identified. The quality of the included studies was fair, but the quality of evidence was very low. Unadjusted meta-analysis showed that urgent-start PD had significantly higher mortality than planned PD, while adjusted meta-analysis did not show a significant difference. Higher incident of leakage and catheter mechanical dysfunction were observed in urgent-start PD. However, peritonitis, exit-site infection, or PD technique survival were comparable between urgent-start and planned PD. The all-cause mortality was comparable in urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD. Bacteremia was significantly lower in the urgent-start PD group than with urgent-start HD. Based on limited evidences, PD may be a viable alternative to HD for CKD patients requiring urgent-start dialysis. Because of the inconsistent results and the low quality of evidence, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn for whether urgent-start PD was comparable with planned PD. Therefore, high-quality and large-scale studies are needed in the future.

Early and Late Patient Outcomes in Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Double purse-string around the inner cuff of the peritoneal catheter: A novel technique for an immediate initiation of continuous peritoneal dialysis

International guidelines recommended a delayed start of peritoneal dialysis at least 2 weeks between catheter insertion and continuous peritoneal dialysis therapy initiation (break-in period). Up to now, the optimal duration of the break-in period is still unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate in patients, with immediate initiation of continuous peritoneal dialysis, the efficacy of a double purse-string around the inner cuff in preventing mechanical and infectious complications either in semi-surgical or surgical catheter implantation. From January 2011 to December 2018, 135 peritoneal dialysis catheter insertions in 125 patients (90 men and 35 women, mean age 62.02 ± 16.7) were performed. Seventy-seven straight double-cuffed Tenckhoff catheters were implanted semi-surgically on midline under the umbilicus by a trocar, and 58 were surgically implanted through the rectus muscle. In all patients, continuous peritoneal dialysis was started immediately after catheter placement. Mechanical and infectious catheter-related complications during the first 3 months after initiation of continuous peritoneal dialysis were recorded. The overall incidence of leakages, catheter dislocations, peritonitis, and exit-site infections was 4/135 (2.96%), 2/135 (1.48%), 14/135 (10.3%), and 4/135 (2.96%), respectively. Regarding the incidence of catheter-related complications, no bleeding events, bowel perforations, or hernia formations were observed with either the semi-surgical or surgical technique. Double purse-string technique around the inner cuff allows an immediate start of continuous peritoneal dialysis both with semi-surgical and surgical catheter implantation. This technique is a safe and feasible approach in patients needing an urgent peritoneal dialysis.

Effects of prophylactic antibiotics before peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation on the clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) related infections, such as peritonitis, are still the main obstacle for the development of PD. Prophylactic antibiotic as one of the interventions to prevent early peritonitis was recommended to use before PD catheter insertion by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines, In our hospital, however, since 2012, the prophylactic antibiotics for insertion of PD catheters were not allowed to use because of our hospital's regulation. In order to analyze the outcomes of PD patients without using prophylactic antibiotics before the PD catheter insertion, we compared the PD patients with or without prophylactic antibiotics before PD catheter insertion.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 247 patients undergoing permanent PD catheter placement with conventional open surgical method consecutively between February 2008 and June 2013. Of these, 154 patients were given intravenous cefazolin, 1.0 g, 0.5-2 h before the procedure (antibiotic group) and 93 patients were not given prophylactic antibiotics (nonantibiotic group). All the patients were administered intermittent PD within 24 h after PD catheter insertion. The early complications and long-term outcomes were recorded respectively.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infection and mechanical complications between the two groups in the first 30 days after the PD catheter implantation. In addition, after 6 years of follow-up, no difference was seen between the two groups in patient survival, technique survival, and peritonitis-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study does not show any beneficial effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the postoperative peritonitis.

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.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis after laparoscopic dialysis catheter implantation: a single-center experience

Background

Appropriate timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter implantation and PD initiation is important. Several guidelines suggest starting PD at least 2 weeks after PD catheter implantation. Recently, urgent-start PD is widespread throughout the world. However, the ideal time to start PD after laparoscopic catheter implantation is not known. We investigated the safety and feasibility of early initiation (within 7 days) PD following laparoscopic peritoneal catheter implantation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic PD catheter implantation at the Kyoto University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Based on when PD was initiated, the patients were divided into two groups, namely, early group, ≤ 7 days and late group, > 7 days after catheter implantation. Catheter-related complications and catheter survival were analyzed.

Results

We analyzed 29 and 26 patients in early and late groups, respectively. The age, sex, the incidence of diabetes and APD, and the follow-up period were not significantly different between the two groups. The interval from catheter implantation to the start of PD was 4.28 ± 1.83 and 162 ± 157.8 days in the early and late groups, respectively (P < 0.01). In a late group, 17 patients (65.4%) underwent catheter implantation using the Moncrief–Popovich technique. The use of bridge hemodialysis was higher in the early group (P < 0.01). No patients developed dialysate leakage in both groups, and no significant differences were observed for catheter malfunction (24.1% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.66), exit-site infection (ESI, 24.1% vs. 28%, P = 0.87), and peritonitis (7.14% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.91) within 6 months. Furthermore, early initiation of PD did not increase the risk of ESI, peritonitis, and PD withdrawal at 1, 2, and 5 years compared to that in the late group.

Conclusions

Urgent-start of PD with laparoscopic catheter implantation did not increase infection-related complications and PD withdrawal. Laparoscopic PD catheter implantation may allow the initiation of PD earlier than 7 days after implantation.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis for patients with end stage renal disease: a 10-year retrospective study

Background

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) can help patients with end-stage renal diseases (ESRD) that are referred late to dialysis. However, catheter patency and related complications of urgent-start PD have not been thoroughly clarified. We investigated the clinical outcomes of urgent-start PD in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

We enrolled ESRD patients who received urgent-start PD (starting PD within 14 days after catheter insertion) in our center from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014, and followed them up for 10 years. The primary outcome was catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term complications related to urgent-start PD.

Results

Totally 2059 patients (58.9% male, mean age 47.6 ± 15.9 years) were enrolled. Few perioperative complications were observed, including significant hemorrhage (n = 3, 0.1%) and bowel perforation (n = 0). Early peritonitis occurred in 24 (1.2%) patients (0.28 episodes per patient-year). Within the first month after catheter insertion, functional catheter malfunction occurred in 85 (4.1%) patients, and abdominal wall complications (including hernia, hydrothorax, hydrocele, and leakage) in 36 (1.7%) patients. During a median 36.5 (17.7–61.4) months of follow-up, 75 (3.6%) patients experienced catheter failure, and 291 (14.1%) had death-censoring technique failure. At the end of 1-month, 1 -year, 3-year, and 5-year, catheter patency rate was 97.6, 96.4, 96.2, 96.2%; and technique survival rate was 99.5, 97.0, 90.3, 82.7%, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, every 5-year increase in age was associated with 19% decrease of risk for catheter failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.89). Male sex (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.00–2.04), diabetic nephropathy (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.08–2.25) and low hemoglobin levels (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.98) were independent risk factors for abdominal wall complications.

Conclusions

Urgent-start PD is a safe and efficacious option for unplanned ESRD patients. A well-trained PD team, a standardized catheter insertion procedure by experienced nephrologists, and a carefully designed initial PD prescription as well as comprehensive follow-up care, might be essential for the successful urgent-start PD program.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1408-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend a break-in period of 2 weeks before starting peritoneal dialysis (PD), but PD within 14 days is also an acceptable and safe alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with an urgent need. However, the effect of the break-in period within 48 hours or later had not been evaluated for early technical complications, long-term maintenance, and survival in patients starting urgent PD.

METHODS

Of 360 patients with a surgically inserted PD catheter, we evaluated 190 patients who needed urgent PD and 29 patients who received conventional PD at a single center between January 2007 and December 2014 in this retrospective observational study. Enrolled patients were divided according to break-in period of <48 hours (P1) or 2-13 days (P2) before starting urgent PD. The primary endpoint was incidence of early technical complications and secondary endpoints included long-term PD maintenance, and patient survival.

RESULTS

PD was started in 103 patients (54.2%) within 48 hours and in 87 patients (45.8%) within 2 to 13 days. The incidence of early technical complication was significantly higher in P1 group (28.2%) than in P2 group (10.3%) (P = 0.002). The need for a repositioning procedure was significantly greater in P1 group (14.6%) than in P2 group (3.4%) (P = 0.009). However, we observed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the prevalence of catheter dysfunction requiring change to HD within 6 months or incidence of peritonitis or exit-site infection. There was no significant difference in PD maintenance and patient survival according to the break-in period between P1 and P2 as well as against the control group.

CONCLUSION

Urgent PD was associated with a low incidence of early technical complications if start was avoided within 48 hours after catheter insertion, and long-term PD maintenance was independent of the break-in period.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion

The success of peritoneal dialysis as renal-replacement therapy depends on a well-functioning peritoneal catheter. Knowledge of best practices in catheter insertion can minimize the risk of catheter complications that lead to peritoneal dialysis failure. The catheter placement procedure begins with preoperative assessment of the patient to determine the most appropriate catheter type, insertion site, and exit site location. Preoperative preparation of the patient is an instrumental step in facilitating the performance of the procedure, avoiding untoward events, and promoting the desired outcome. Catheter insertion methods include percutaneous needle-guidewire with or without image guidance, open surgical dissection, peritoneoscopic procedure, and surgical laparoscopy. The insertion technique used often depends on the geographic availability of material resources and local provider expertise in placing catheters. Independent of the catheter implantation approach, adherence to a number of universal details is required to ensure the best opportunity for creating a successful long-term peritoneal access. Finally, appropriate postoperative care and catheter break-in enables a smooth transition to dialysis therapy.

Comparison of outcomes between emergent-start and planned-start peritoneal dialysis in incident ESRD patients: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The clinical consequences of starting chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) after emergent dialysis via a temporary hemodialysis (HD) catheter has rarely been evaluated within a full spectrum of treated end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We investigated the longer-term outcomes of patients undergoing emergent-start PD in comparison with that of other practices of PD or HD in a prospective cohort of new-onset ESRD.

METHODS

This was a 2-year prospective observational study. We enrolled 507 incident ESRD patients, among them 111 chose PD (43 planned-start, 68 emergent-start) and 396 chose HD (116 planned-start, 280 emergent-start) as the long-term dialysis modality. The logistic regression model was used to identify variables associated with emergent-start dialysis. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine patient survival and technique failure. The propensity score-adjusted Cox regression model was used to identify factors associated with patient outcomes.

RESULTS

During the 2-year follow-up, we observed 5 (4.5%) deaths, 15 (13.5%) death-censored technique failures (transfer to HD) and 3 (2.7%) renal transplantations occurring in the PD population. Lack of predialysis education, lower predialysis estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum albumin were predictors of being assigned to emergent dialysis initiation. The emergent starters of PD displayed similar risks of patient survival, technique failure and overall hospitalization, compared with the planned-start counterparts. By contrast, the concurrent planned-start and emergent-start HD patients with an arteriovenous fistula or graft were protected from early overall death and access infection-related mortality, compared with the emergent HD starters using a central venous catheter.

CONCLUSIONS

In late-referred chronic kidney disease patients who have initiated emergent dialysis via a temporary HD catheter, post-initiation PD can be a safe and effective long-term treatment option. Nevertheless, due to the potential complications and cost concerns, such practice of PD initiation would better be replaced with a planned-start mode by employing more effective predialysis therapeutic education and timely catheter placement.