Peritoneal dialysis in the nursing home

BACKGROUND

During the past few decades, the demographics of end stage renal disease have been changed significantly with the emerging predominance of elderly patients. Elderly dialysis patients are usually more dependent and may need long-term placement in a long-term care facility. Failure to meet the needs of these patients may have a significant impact on the peritoneal dialysis program. We report our experience of starting peritoneal dialysis program in a community-based Long Term Care Facility (LTCF).

METHODS

During the period of 2000-2001, after appropriate training of nursing home personnel, we admitted 8 peritoneal dialysis patients to one community-based nursing home. All information presented here has been collected through chart review.

RESULTS

At the time of admission the average age of the 8 patients was 77.3 +/- 7.2 years (range 69 to 91 years). All patients had several comorbid diseases and six of the eight were bed-ridden. The patients stayed in the facility for a total of 29.57 patient months. One patient had three episodes of peritonitis within three months (all culture negative) and has been excluded from the analysis of the overall peritonitis rate. The peritonitis rate for the other seven patients was 1 per 7.54 patient month. Six patients were readmitted to hospital because of peritonitis, severe malnutrition and hip fracture. Four of them died in the hospital. One died in the nursing home. One patient remains in the nursing home at the present time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience suggests that peritoneal dialysis can be achieved in a community-based nursing home. This requires a systematic training program for the LTCF personnel and the availability of a "dedicated" nephrology dialysis staff. This is crucial to the success of the program. It is important that patients, their families and ESRD care professionals are informed of the limited survival expectation particularly for very old and severely impaired patients.

Differences in survival on peritoneal dialysis between oriental Asians and Caucasians: One center's experience

BACKGROUND

Recently it has been suggested that the survival of dialysis patients may differ among different races. Both registry data and data from Asian countries indicates that Asians on peritoneal dialysis may survive longer than their Caucasian counterparts. In the present study, we performed a detailed analysis of survival differences between oriental Asians and Caucasians on peritoneal dialysis in our multiethnic, multicultural program.

METHODS

Retrospectively we analyzed the survival data for patients who started peritoneal dialysis after January 1, 1996 and before December 31, 1999, in our hospital. They were followed for at least for two years. Excluded from the present analysis were those who survived for less than three months on peritoneal dialysis. The patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and residual renal function at the start of dialysis were collected. Indices for adequacy of dialysis were collected 1-3 months after the initiation of dialysis. Actuarial survival rates were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to classify risk factors for a high mortality.

RESULTS

There were 87 Caucasians and 29 Oriental Asian peritoneal dialysis patients. No differences were found in age, gender, primary renal disease, and residual renal function between the two groups. The Caucasians had significantly higher body surface area and urea volume and higher incidence of cardiovascular diseases. Even with slightly higher dialysis dose, the peritoneal creatinine clearance was significantly lower among the Caucasians than among Asians. There was no difference in the peritoneal D/P value between the two groups. However, compared to the Caucasians, the 24hr peritoneal fluid removal and total fluid removal volumes were significantly lower in the Asian patients. The one, two, three and four year survival rates were 95.8%, 91%, 86% and 80% for Asians and 91.3%, 78.1%, 64.7% and 54.1% for Caucasians. Significant predictors for a higher mortality were the presence of cardiovascular disease (42% increase in risk), Caucasians (39% increase in risk) and older age (37% increase in risk for age older than 65).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that oriental Asians on peritoneal dialysis patients survive much longer than their Caucasian counterparts; this was partly due to the fact that Asian patients have less cardiovascular disease when they began peritoneal dialysis. Due to their smaller body size, the Asians tended to have a higher peritoneal small solute clearances despite their smaller dialysis doses, indicating that, to achieve the same solute clearance targets, Asians need a smaller dialysis dose compared to Caucasians.

Prospective randomized study of once-daily versus twice-daily amikacin regimens in patients with systemic infections

The efficacy and safety of amikacin administered once-daily versus twice-daily was evaluated in adult patients with systemic infections. Patients over 23 years of age with suspected or documented systemic infections were randomly divided into two groups: one group received amikacin intravenously 15 mg/kg once-daily, and the other group received amikacin 15 mg/kg divided into 2 doses. The efficacy of both dosage regimens was very good with a satisfactory clinical response in 90.2% and 89%, respectively. The bacteriological cure rate was 82.2% and 76%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 regimens as far as what efficacy and safety are concerned. Nephrotoxicity appeared in 2 patients of the first group and 3 patients of the second, but did not lead to discontinuation of amikacin. No significant differences between the regimens with regard to hearing loss or prodromal signs of ototoxicity. We concluded that amikacin administered once-daily appears to be as effective and safe as the twice-daily dosing. However, the once-daily administration is more convenient and less costly.