Impact of break-in period on the short-term outcomes of patients started on peritoneal dialysis

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.

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).

Early outcomes of peritoneal dialysis in a middle-income country: A retrospective cohort study of a large dialysis network in Colombia

BACKGROUND

The first year of dialysis is critical given the significant risk for complications following dialysis initiation. We analysed complications during the first year among incident peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study comprised adult kidney failure patients starting PD in Baxter Renal Care Services in Colombia, receiving their first PD catheter between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020 and were followed up for up to 1 year. We analysed incidence, causes and factors associated with complications using logistic regression and transfer to haemodialysis (HD) using the Fine-Gray regression model.

RESULTS

Among 4743 patients receiving their first PD catheter: 4628 (97.6%) of catheter implantations were successful; 377 (7.9%) patients experienced early complications. The incidence rate of complications during the year was 0.51 events per patient-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.54). Age, obesity and urgent start were associated with higher probability of complications after catheter implantation. The cumulative incidence of transfer to HD within 1 year of PD initiation was 10.1% [95% CI: 9.2-11.1%]. The hazard function for transfer to HD showed an accelerating pattern during the first month followed by progressive decrease during the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large population of incident PD patients, there is a high primary catheter placement success rate. Urgent start, age ≥65 years, obesity, centre size ≥150 PD patients and diabetes were risk factors associated with early complications. The follow-up of the cohort from day 1 of PD treatment showed that the risk for transfer to HD was higher during the first month.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of mechanical complications in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an excellent, but underutilized dialysis technique. Thus, its implementation may depend also on the chance to offer this modality of treatment to patients referred late to the nephologists. This approach has recently been named "urgent-start peritoneal dialysis" (UPD). The main barrier to this practice is represented by the fear of early mechanical complications.

METHODS

All prevalent patients needing urgent-start PD at our institution between 1 January, 2009 and 31 December, 2019 were included in the study. During this period, 242 peritoneal catheters were inserted in 222 patients. In all patients, an anti-leakage/dislocation suture was made. PD was started within 24 h from catheter placement.

RESULTS

The early incidence of leakages, catheter dislocations, omental wrappings, bleedings, peritonitis and exit-site infections was 11/242 (4.5%), 5/242 (2%), 3/242 (1.2%), 2/242 (0.8%), 6/242 (2.5%) and 4/242 (1.6%), respectively. No bowel perforations were observed. Nearly one third of the late complications (13/45; 35.2%) resulted in discontinuation of PD, while one fourth (11/45; 24.4%) required surgical revision. The remaining episodes (21/45; 46.6%) were successfully managed by a conservative approach. The survival of the catheter at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months was 93.6, 91.2, 84.8, 77.4, 65.5 and 59.3%, respectively. The technique survival at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months was 97.2, 94.9, 87.6, 78.9, 66.6 and 60.0%, respectively. The main causes of PD drop-out included infectious complications (36.8%) followed by mechanical complications (17.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

A tight seal between deep cuff and surrounding tissues (double purse-string technique) in association with a starting low-volume exchange scheme allows to minimize early and late mechanical complication in UPD.

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.

Commentary on the NICE guideline on renal replacement therapy and conservative management

NICE Guideline NG107, “Renal replacement therapy and conservative management” (Renal replacement therapy and conservative management (NG107); 2018:1–33) was published in October 2018 and replaced the existing NICE guideline CG125, “Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage 5): peritoneal dialysis” (Chronic kidney disease (stage 5): peritoneal dialysis | Guidance | NICE; 2011) and NICE Technology Appraisal TA48, “Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure”(Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure (Technology appraisal guideline TA48); 2002) The aim of the NICE guideline (NG107) was to provide guidance on renal replacement therapy (RRT), including dialysis, transplant and conservative care, for adults and children with CKD Stages 4 and 5. The guideline is extremely welcomed by the Renal Association and it offers huge value to patients, clinicians, commissioners and key stakeholders. It overlaps and enhances current guidance published by the Renal Association including “Haemodialysis” (Clinical practice guideline: Haemodialysis; 2019) which was updated in 2019 after the publication of the NICE guideline, “Peritoneal Dialysis in Adults and Children” (Clinical practice guideline: peritoneal Dialysis in adults and children; 2017) and “Planning, Initiation & withdrawal of Renal Replacement Therapy” (Clinical practice guideline: planning, initiation and withdrawal of renal replacement therapy; 2014) (at present there are no plans to update this guideline).

There are several strengths to NICE guideline NG107 and we agree with and support the vast majority of recommendation statements in the guideline. This summary from the Renal Association discusses some of the key highlights, controversies, gaps in knowledge and challenges in implementation. Where there is disagreement with a NICE guideline statement, we have highlighted this and a new suggested statement has been written.

A Case Series: Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in Neonates With Low Body Weight

Emerging data indicate that acute kidney injury (AKI) may contribute to a worse prognosis in the infant population. Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) can be used to treat patients with AKI; however, this technique is challenging in patients in the neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) due to the low body weights and blood volumes in this population. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a potential modality since it is technically less challenging. However, PD has been associated with several disadvantages, including poor fluid status control, catheter-associated leakage, and peritonitis. Unfortunately, these complications can cause the temporary cessation of PD. Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) may represent a suitable alternative for PD. CKRT may be technically feasible in infants; however, little is known about the application of CKRT in neonates with low body weights. In this report, we discuss three cases of CKRT who were treated in the NICU at a tertiary medical center in southern Taiwan. We selected an adequate catheter diameter and achieved vascular access via an internal jugular vein or umbilical vein. The prescription of an appropriate dose of heparin was then used to prolong the circuit life of the CKRT. The maintenance of circuit durability in neonates with low body weight remains problematic. We hope that our experience can assist with the future clinical management of CKRT in neonates with low body weight.

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.

Comparison of outcomes of urgent-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

There has been a growing interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease to avoid central venous catheter use and its complications. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between urgent-start PD (defined as PD commencement within 2 weeks of PD catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2017 and February 2018. The primary outcome was dialysate leak. Secondary outcomes included catheter malfunction, catheter readjustment, exit-site infection, peritonitis, technique and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 187 incident PD patients were included. Of these, 66 (35%) initiated urgent-start PD. Dialysate leak was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD groups (7.6% versus 0.8%; p = 0.02) whilst catheter malfunction (4.5% vs. 3.3%; p  = 0.70) and catheter readjustment (1.5% vs. 2.5%; p  = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups. Exit-site infection was comparable (IRR: 0.66 95% CI 0.25-1.74) whilst peritonitis was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-7.44). Time to first episode of peritonitis, particularly Gram-positive peritonitis was significantly shorter with urgent-start PD. Technique survival (hazards ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% CI 0.89-4.31) and patient survival (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.44-4.87) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Urgent-start PD was associated with higher risks of dialysate leak and peritonitis but comparable technique and patient survival compared to conventional-start PD.

Technique Failure in Peritoneal Dialysis: Etiologies and Risk Assessment

Technique failure (TF) is a well-recognized challenge encountered in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). Identification of patients at risk for this complication is of utmost importance. Early detection of patients at risk and development of preventative strategies can improve technique survival that may lead to an increased utilization of PD. It will also promote a safe and planned transfer to hemodialysis once a patient identified with TF. The aim of this review is to summarize risk factors and scenarios associated with TF focusing on prevention of remediable factors at their earliest stage. Furthermore, integration of this knowledge into quality improvement initiatives should be entertained in an effort to improve outcomes.

Evaluating Factors Contributing to Dropout in a Large Peritoneal Dialysis Program

BACKGROUND

The low prevalence of peritoneal dialysis (PD) (9%) vs. hemodialysis (HD) (88.2%) is partly due to patient dropout from therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study identified patients who withdrew from PD between 2016 and 2018 in our program. We evaluated all other factors as controllable losses. Analysis included time on therapy at dropout (very early, early or late) and method of initiation (HD to PD conversion, unplanned PD, or planned start).

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients enrolled into our PD program. 27 dropped out; 24 were due to controllable factors, 3 due to death, with a median age at dropout of 52 years old. We determined psychosocial factors (PF) to be the largest controllable factor influencing dropout; contributing a 63% rate among all controllable factors. When considering time until dropout, 100% of very early dropout patients and 50% of late dropout patients did so due to PF. Among early dropout patients 67% dropped out due to other medical reasons. The mean time to dropout for PF, other, and infection (INF) were 13, 26, and 33 months, respectively. When considering type of initiation, we found PF to be the largest attributable factor with 50% of unplanned, 100% of planned, and 50% of conversions stopping therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that the primary reason for controllable loss from therapy was secondary to PF regardless of the time on therapy or the method of initiation to therapy.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

Simultaneous Removal And Reinsertion of the PD Catheter in Relapsing Peritonitis

Background:Relapsing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with lower cure rates and more hemodialysis (HD) transfers, as catheter removal is recommended in these situations. The aim of our study was to evaluate the continuation of PD without perioperative transfer to HD in patients who underwent a simultaneous catheter removal and replacement for relapsing peritonitis.Methods:This was a retrospective monocentric study. Patients with simultaneous catheter removal and replacement for relapsing peritonitis or peritonitis at high risk of relapse (fungal or Pseudomonas infection) between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016 were included. The events of interest were the continuation of PD without perioperative transfer to HD, postoperative complications, new infection with the same organism, and technique survival.Results:Of the 271 incident patients in PD during this period, 11 had a simultaneous catheter removal and replacement for relapsing peritonitis (8) or high risk of relapse peritonitis (3). Eight (72.7%) patients pursued PD without transfer to HD. Six infections were due to microorganisms other than gram-positive cocci. At 1 year, 7 (63.6%) of the 11 patients were still on PD. After the surgery, there were no peritonitis or catheter-related infections caused by the same organism.Conclusion:Simultaneous catheter removal and replacement for peritonitis appears to be an effective procedure for maintaining patients on PD.

Low-Volume Tidal Peritoneal Dialysis Is a Preferable Mode in Patients Initiating Urgent-Start Automated Peritoneal Dialysis: A Randomized, Open-Label, Prospective Control Study

The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of low-volume tidal peritoneal dialysis (TPD) and intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD) in ESRD patients initiating automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) after an acute catheter insertion. Clinical outcomes of patients who received either TPD or IPD using an APD system were compared in a randomized, open-label, prospective control study in a single-center setting. From May 2011 to May 2013, 49 patients were enrolled and 27 patients received low-volume TPD treatment, whereas 22 patients underwent low-volume IPD right after Tenckhoff catheter insertion. The incidence of complications during the 14-day APD treatment were observed. After APD treatment, all the patients were transferred to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and followed up for 2 years. The IPD group demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of catheter-related complications (omental wrapping 27.3% vs. 0% and suction pain 18.2% vs. 0%) than the TPD group after adjusting for age, gender, baseline diabetes, systolic blood pressure, BMI, and the experience of the operators. However, the short duration of APD treatment with either IPD or TPD mode did not affect the long-time technical survival. In patients immediately after catheter insertion, low-volume TPD mode demonstrated a lower incidence of catheter-related complications compared to IPD. Although our results provided evidence that TPD is a preferable APD mode for this specific population, definitive conclusions about TPD benefit cannot be made, owing to early termination of the trial.

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.

What PD Research in China Tells Us

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) was introduced in China later than in most Western countries, and PD research activity was quite limited until the 1990s. However, in the 2000s, and even more so during the last decade, there has been an unsurpassed increase in the number of PD patients, paralleled by a substantial increase in PD research activity reflected by an increasing number of PD papers from China. In this brief review, we describe some of the factors that may explain the dramatic developments in PD research in mainland China, such as the focus on basic research using scientific approaches that subsequently could be applied also in clinical studies. Another important factor was the growing interactions with international PD research centers in Hong Kong and in Western countries. Thanks to strong support from Chinese national and regional funding sources, a growing number of young Chinese researchers went to key international PD centers to learn about novel advanced research techniques. This paved the way for long-lasting, productive collaborations with benefits also for the foreign host institutions. Finally, we present some current research projects, including basic research that may contribute to the understanding of mechanisms behind complications such as peritonitis, and clinical projects aiming at improving PD management guidelines and better understanding of the potential of PD in China. Because of the size of the PD population, now the largest in the world, and the increasing number, and quality, of researchers in the PD field, PD research in China is destined to be a major contributor to advancements in PD in the near future.

Application of automated peritoneal dialysis in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis patients during the break-in period

Objective

Whether automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is a feasible strategy for urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy during the break-in period remains unclear. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy as well as complications among three PD modes during the break-in period.

Methods

Ninety-six patients treated with urgent-start PD after catheterization were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups, incremental continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) group (n = 26); APD group (n = 42); and APD–CAPD group (n = 28). Clinical parameters at the end of the break-in period and 1 month after the initiation of PD treatment were collected and analyzed.

Results

Compared with the traditional incremental CAPD, APD and APD–CAPD were superior as they could effectively remove small-molecule uremic toxins and correct electrolyte imbalance (P < 0.05), while did not increase the incidence of early complications during the break-in period (P > 0.05). However, APD led to a significant decline in albumin and pre-albumin, as compared with APD–CAPD and CAPD (P < 0.05). A PD strategy consisting 6 days of APD and 3 days of CAPD showed a great advantage in preventing excessive protein loss. There were no significant differences in all tested biochemical parameters among the three groups at 1 month after treatment (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Application of APD for urgent-start PD during the break-in period is feasible. A combination of APD and CAPD regimens seems to be a more reasonable mode.

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.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: The First Year of Brazilian Experience

Background: This study aimed to evaluate mechanical and infectious complications associated with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) and patients and technique survival in the first 180 days. Methods: It was a prospective study that evaluated chronic patients who started unplanned PD using high-volume PD (HVPD) right after (<72 h) PD catheter placement. After hospital discharge, patients were treated with intermittent PD on alternate days in a dialysis unit until family training was provided. Results: Fifty-one patients fulfilling the following criteria were included: age was 62.1 ± 15 years, with diabetes as the main etiology of end-stage renal disease (39%), and uremia as the main dialysis indication (76%). Metabolic and fluid controls were achieved after 3 sessions of HVPD, and patients remained in intermittent PD for 23.2 ± 7.2 days. Mechanical complications occurred in 25.7% and peritonitis rate was 0.5 episode/patient-year. In the first 6 months, technique and patients survival rates were 86 and 82.4% respectively. Conclusion: The PD modality was a feasible and safe alternative to hemodialysis in the urgent-start dialysis.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A Comparison between Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis and Automatic Peritoneal Dialysis on Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Urgent-start dialysis is a major problem for incident dialysis population. Urgent start on hemodialysis is associated with an increased risk of infectious or mechanical complications, and its mortality is equal to or higher than that of urgent start on peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, compared to patients starting PD in a planned setting, those on urgent-started PD have an increased risk of mechanical complications and lower technique survival.

METHODS

In this study, 101 adult incident dialysis patients (≥18 years old) who underwent Tenckhoff catheter implantation were enrolled. All of the patients were grouped according to the urgent PD mode: the intermittent PD (IPD) or automatic PD (APD) group, and patients were followed for 1 year. The paired or independent t test was used to analyze the change of laboratory variables. Pearson chi-square test was applied to compare the short outcome between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

When PD was treated for 7 days and 1 month, the APD group has the lower serum potassium and phosphorus levels than the IPD group. The incidence of catheter dysfunction was significantly lower in the APD group. The morbidity of infection associated with PD in the first year was lower in the APD group despite no significant difference existing. The technique survival and patient survival rate have no evident difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to IPD, urgent start on APD could reduce the risk of mechanical complication, which could be considered a gentle, safe, and feasible alternative to urgent start on IPD.

Feasibility of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in Older Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) frequently require urgent-start dialysis. Recent evidence suggests that peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in these patients, including in older patients.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled patients aged > 65 years with ESRD who underwent urgent dialysis without functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center, from January 2011 to December 2014. Patients were grouped based on their dialysis modality (PD or HD). Patients unable to tolerate PD catheter insertion or wait for PD were excluded. Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion. Short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

A total of 94 patients were enrolled, including 53 (56.4%) who underwent PD. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly lower in PD compared with HD patients (3 [5.7%] vs 10 [24.4%], p = 0.009). Logistic regression identified urgent-start HD as an independent risk factor for dialysis-related complications compared with urgent-start PD (odds ratio 4.760 [1.183 – 19.147], p = 0.028). The 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival rates in the PD and HD groups were 92.3% vs 94.6%, 82.4% vs 81.3%, 75.7% vs 74.2%, and 69.5% vs 60.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (log-rank = 0.011, p = 0.915).

Conclusion

Urgent-start PD was associated with fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and similar survival to urgent-start HD in older patients with ESRD. Peritoneal dialysis may thus be a safe and effective dialysis modality for older ESRD patients requiring urgent dialysis.

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

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Our study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.

CONCLUSION

In an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.

Unplanned Start on Peritoneal Dialysis Right after PD Catheter Implantation for Older People with End-Stage Renal Disease

Unplanned start on dialysis remains a major problem for the dialysis community worldwide. Late-referred patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and urgent need for dialysis are overrepresented among older people. These patients are particularly likely to be started on in-center hemodialysis (HD), with a temporary vascular access known to be associated with excess mortality and increased risks of potentially lethal complications such as bacteremia and central venous thrombosis or stenosis.The present paper describes in detail our program for unplanned start on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) right after PD catheter implantation and summarizes our experiences with the program so far. Compared with planned start on PD after at least 2 weeks of break-in between PD catheter implantation and initiation of dialysis, unplanned start may be associated with a slight increased risk of mechanical complications but apparently no detrimental effect on mortality, peritonitis-free survival, or PD technique survival.In our opinion and experience, the risk of serious complications associated with the implantation and immediate use of a PD catheter is less than the risk of complications associated with unplanned start on HD with a temporary central venous catheter (CVC). Unplanned start on APD is a gentle, safe, and feasible alternative to unplanned start on HD with a temporary CVC that is also valid for the late-referred older patient with ESRD and urgent need for dialysis.

Key factors for a high-quality peritoneal dialysis program--the role of the PD team and continuous quality improvement

The proportion of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) has increased very fast in China over the last decade. Renji Hospital, affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, is a recognized high-quality PD unit with a high PD utilization rate, excellent patient and technique survival (1-year and 5-year patient survival rate of 93% and 71%, and 1-year and 5-year technique survival of 96% and 82%, respectively), low peritonitis rate and a well-documented good quality of life of the treated patients. We believe that a dedicated and experienced PD team, a structured patient training program, continuous patient support, establishing and utilizing standardized protocols, starting PD with low dialysis dose, monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs), and continuous quality improvement (CQI) are the key factors underlying this successful PD program.

Peritoneal dialysis catheter placement in the right lower quadrant is associated with a lower risk of catheter tip migration: a retrospective single-center study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a modified technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement in the right lower quadrant with respect to catheter tip migration.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 237 patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent implantation of a two-cuff straight-end swan-neck catheter for peritoneal dialysis. Ninety-eight patients received conventional catheter placement in the left quadrant (beside the umbilicus 12-13 cm above the pubic symphysis) with catheter exit site on the left, and 139 patients received modified catheter placement in the right lower quadrant (beside the umbilicus 6-7 cm above the pubic symphysis) with catheter exit site on the right. Dialysate inflow time, dialysate outflow time, ultrafiltration volume, infection, hemorrhage, intestinal obstruction, and catheter tip migration were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in dialysate inflow time, dialysate outflow time, ultrafiltration volume, infection, hemorrhage, or intestinal obstruction between the conventional and modified groups. Catheter tip migration occurred in 19 (19.3%) of the 98 patients in the conventional group, and in 5 (3.6%) of the 139 patients in the modified group. The frequency of occurrence of catheter tip migration was significantly less in the modified group compared with the conventional group (p < 0.01). In addition, repositioning of the catheter occurred in all five patients with catheter tip migration in the modified group after conservative treatment, whereas 12 patients required surgical repositioning of the catheter in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified technique is superior to the conventional technique in reducing catheter tip migration. This technique can be widely performed in the clinic.

Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States

Patients presenting late in the course of kidney disease who require urgent initiation of dialysis have traditionally received temporary vascular catheters followed by hemodialysis. Recent changes in Medicare payment policy for dialysis in the USA incentivized the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Consequently, the use of more expeditious PD for late-presenting patients (urgent-start PD) has received new attention. Urgent-start PD has been shown to be safe and effective, and offers a mechanism for increasing PD utilization. However, there has been no assessment of the dialysis-related costs over the first 90 days of care. The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with urgent-start PD, urgent-start hemodialysis (HD), or a dual approach (urgent-start HD followed by urgent-start PD) over the first 90 days of treatment from a provider perspective. A survey of practitioners from 5 clinics known to use urgent-start PD was conducted to provide inputs for a cost model representing typical patients. Model inputs were obtained from the survey, literature review, and available cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. The estimated per patient cost over the first 90 days for urgent-start PD was $16,398. Dialysis access represented 15% of total costs, dialysis services 48%, and initial hospitalization 37%. For urgent-start HD, total per patient costs were $19,352, and dialysis access accounted for 27%, dialysis services 42%, and initial hospitalization 31%. The estimated cost for dual patients was $19,400. Urgent-start PD may offer a cost saving approach for the initiation of dialysis in eligible patients requiring an urgent-start to dialysis.