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

Risk factors for thrombosis in dialysis patients: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To identify the factors associated with thrombosis in dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis is a leading cause of vascular access failure in dialysis patients. Numerous risk factors contribute to thrombosis in this population.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across international databases using standardized keywords. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the STROBE and CONSORT checklists. The findings were summarized in a Garrard table. Meta-analysis was performed using CMA software. The study adhered to the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

A total of 180 articles were reviewed. The odds ratio for thrombosis in patients with arteriovenous grafts compared to arteriovenous fistulas was 10.93 (95 % CI: 9.35-12.78), demonstrating statistical significance (P = 0.001). Similarly, hemodialysis patients had an odds ratio of thrombosis 3.60 times higher than non-hemodialysis patients (95 % CI: 3.54-4.19), with statistical significance (P = 0.001). Patients undergoing single-stage basilic vein transposition had a 1.89 times higher risk of thrombosis compared to those undergoing two-stage transposition (95 % CI: 1.04-3.46), also demonstrating statistical significance (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombosis in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis was significantly associated with various factors, including graft access, single-stage basilic vein transposition, and hemodialysis. Additional contributing factors to thrombosis included diabetes, elevated homocysteine levels, female gender, age over 50, access location, and low access blood flow velocity. The analysis revealed a higher incidence of thrombosis in end-stage renal disease patients undergoing hemodialysis compared to those not undergoing dialysis, as well as in patients with arteriovenous grafts compared to those with arteriovenous fistulas. These findings underscore the importance of recognizing and managing these risk factors to prevent thrombotic events and enhance patient care within the dialysis setting.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD

Introduction

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) shows promise for urgent-start dialysis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with automated PD (APD) having advantages. However, there is limited multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence comparing APD with temporary hemodialysis (HD) for this indication in China.

Methods

This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications.

Results

The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424).

Conclusion

For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: Association with outcomes

The majority of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients start dialysis without adequate pre-dialysis planning. Of these patients, the vast majority initiate in-centre haemodialysis using a central venous catheter (ICHD-CVC). A minority utilise urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD), whereby a peritoneal dialysis catheter is placed and used for dialysis without the usual 2-4-week waiting period. In this multicentre, retrospective study of adult patients initiating dialysis during 2018, we compared outcomes among patients utilising these two dialysis initiation routes. Patients who initiated dialysis via ICHD-CVC were matched 1:1 to patients who utilised USPD on the basis of aetiology of ESKD, race, diabetes status and insurance type. Hospitalisation and mortality were evaluated from dialysis initiation through the first of death, transplant, loss to follow-up or study end (30 June 2019). Outcomes were compared using models adjusted for age and sex. A total of 717 USPD patients were matched to ICHD-CVC patients. During follow-up, USPD patients were hospitalised at a rate of 1.21 admissions/patient-year (pt-yr) versus 1.51 admissions/pt-yr for ICHD-CVC. This corresponded to a 24% lower rate of hospitalisation among USPD patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.88). Mortality rates were 0.08 and 0.11 deaths/pt-yr among USPD patients and ICHD-CVC patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.62, 1.15). These findings suggest that more widespread adoption of USPD may be beneficial among patients with limited pre-dialysis planning.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter-related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two tertiary care hospitals in Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

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

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Peritoneal Dialysis: Turning Choice into Reality

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization rates vary widely between UK renal centers. Currently there are only limited data available on how many patients choose PD but subsequently fail to start their chosen modality. In the current analysis we sought to explore the outcomes of patients who chose PD in our center where all PD catheters are inserted via a mini-laparotomy with no acute-start PD service.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 658 patients over a 12-year period who, following predialysis education had chosen PD as their preferred renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality. Data were collected on patient demographics, start modality, transplantation, patient survival, and the reasons patients failed to start PD.

Results

Predialysis education was given to 2,749 patients, and 658 (24%) chose PD. Of the 566 (86%) who either started RRT or died, less than half started PD ( n = 273, 48%). The commonest reason to start hemodialysis (HD) was an acute decline in kidney function leading to an effective ‘unplanned’ start on RRT. As a result, despite adjusting for older age and higher comorbidity, the transplant-censored survival at 3 years from the time of start of RRT was predictably worse in patients starting HD. Less than half the patients who started HD went on to commence PD later.

Conclusion

Unanticipated decline in kidney function leading to unplanned start on HD contributes to the worse outcomes associated with failing to start PD. How and when we insert PD catheters appears to be key, and we have identified ways to improve our service.

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.