Use of home automated intermittent peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of end stage renal failure

The Role of Automated Peritoneal Dialysis in Peritoneal Dialysis Programme: One Centre Experience

The results of the Automated Peritoneal Dialysis (APD) therapy in adult patients in the Department of Nephrology in Gdansk during the years 1995–98 are presented. Seventeen patients (8-M, 9-F) aged 25–86 years (mean age 55.3 years), including 7 diabetics, were treated with different forms of APD. The most common indication for APD therapy was patients' loss of ability to perform Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis due to progressive blindness, leg amputation related to diabetic foot complications or cerebrovascular episodes (8 pts). The cumulative therapy period was 231.5 patient-months.

During the observation 4 patients died, 1 received kidney transplant and 12 were still treated with APD at the end of the study. No patient was transferred to long-term hemodialysis. The peritonitis rate in the APD group was 1/57.5 patient-months. Most patients reached adequacy targets, the mean Kt/V value was 1.97 (range 1.17 - 2.36). To achieve this, 12–19 litres of dialysate were used per day (mean 14.6 L/d). There were significant differences between CCPD and NPD groups with respect to dialysis adequacy, body weight and dialysis fluid volume. We conclude that APD may be used with success in patients in whom continuation of CAPD or HD therapy is very difficult due to its complications or comorbid conditions.

Automated peritoneal dialysis in Hong Kong: there are two distinct groups of patients

AIM

To compare the clinical outcome between continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) in specific subgroups of patients.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical outcome of 90 consecutive incident APD patients and 180 CAPD patients in our centre.

RESULTS

The median follow up was 21.9 months (inter-quartile range, 9.5 to 46.5 months). The APD group was younger and had a lower Charlson's score than the CAPD group. Furthermore, the APD group had a highly skewed distribution of the Charlson's score, indicating the possibility of two different groups of patients. Multivariate analysis showed that in addition to the treatment mode (APD vs CAPD) and Charlson's score, there was a significant interaction between the two (P = 0.043) on patient survival. For patients with Charlson's score ≤6, the APD group had a significantly better patient survival than the CAPD group (78.3% vs. 65.4% at 5 years, P = 0.039), while for patients with Charlson's score ≥7, the APD group had a worse patient survival than the CAPD group (16.3% vs. 48.4% at 5 years, P = 0.028). Similarly, Charlson's score and its interaction with treatment mode, but not the APD group per se, were independent predictors of technique survival (P = 0.013). For patients with Charlson's score ≥7, the APD group had a significantly lower technique survival than the CAPD group (8.8% vs. 34.3%, P = 0.001), while for patients with Charlson's score ≤6, the technique survival was similar (44.4% vs. 42.5%, P = 0.15). Peritonitis-free survival was 35.2% and 32.2% for APD and CAPD groups, respectively (P = 0.021), and the difference was not affected by Charlson's score.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid diseases had a significant interaction with the mode of PD on patient and technique survival of incident PD patients. Our result suggests that APD may offer benefit in, and only in, young patients with minimal comorbid diseases.