Comparison of outcomes of peritoneal dialysis catheters placed by the fluoroscopically guided percutaneous method versus directly visualized surgical method

Percutaneous Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters

Patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis encounter significant challenges in care coordination and experience higher complication rates. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an evidence-based alternative that significantly improves patients' quality of life.Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion methods include open surgical, laparoscopic, peritoneoscopic, and percutaneous image-guided approaches. Despite comparable success rates and cost-effectiveness, the US healthcare system underutilizes the percutaneous method.This article aims to provide an overview of the essential components of the technique of percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion, as well as address patient selection nuances and considerations for urgent-start dialysis. Additionally, it reviews the outcomes and complications associated with image-guided percutaneous PD catheter placement, advocating for its wider adoption.

Inpatient peritoneal dialysis catheters placed across the United States during a 3-year period: Lessons learned from 15,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis is a popular option for patients with end-stage renal disease. A recent presidential executive order has incentivized in-home end-stage renal disease treatments, leading to an increase in peritoneal dialysis use. Guidelines exist for creating and maintaining peritoneal dialysis access without addressing the optimal technique. This study evaluates nationwide peritoneal dialysis catheter placement practices and their long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of Nationwide Readmission Database from 2017 to 2019. Patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing inpatient peritoneal dialysis catheter placement were included. Six-month readmissions, mortality, and peritoneal dialysis catheter-specific outcome measures were assessed among survivors of admission, including catheter leakage, mechanical breakdown, displacement, revision or replacement, removal, exit site infections, intra-abdominal abscess, and sepsis. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the study, 14,863 patients with inpatient peritoneal dialysis catheter insertions were identified, of which 7,096 were analyzed (4,150 [59%] laparoscopic, 1,781 [25%] fluoroscopic, 1,165 [16%] open), 847 (12%) had major complications, 931 (13%) were readmitted, and 102 (1.4%) died within 6 months. Univariate analyses demonstrated that laparoscopy had higher mechanical complications, exit-site infections, catheter revision, and removal within 6 months, and fluoroscopy had higher sepsis and mortality. Multivariate analyses showed fluoroscopy was associated with intraabdominal abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36; P = .025), laparoscopy with exit-site infections (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; P = .005), and open surgery with catheter displacement (adjust odds ratio, 2.95; P = .021).

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale study on inpatient peritoneal dialysis catheter placement outcomes in the United States. Fluoroscopic and open surgical placements are routinely performed, but laparoscopy remains the mainstay with fewer exit-site infections. Overall, peritoneal dialysis is a safe option, with 1 in 9 patients having an infectious or mechanical complication within 6 months. Furthermore, large-scale prospective studies are warranted to identify the optimal placement technique.

Clinical Application of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheterization without Capsular Puncture Technique

Objective

To summarize the advantages of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters without capsular puncture (only one pneumoperitoneum needle) puncture technique conducted by our center.

Methods

The study examines the clinical data of PD patients (including the general situation of patients, intraoperative and postoperative characteristics, and complications) undergoing pneumoperitoneum needle catheterization from January 2019 to May 2021 in the Department of Nephrology at the First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University (the largest peritoneal dialysis center in Zhangjiakou).

Results

A total of 153 surgical cases were collected. There were 91 males and 62 females. The mean (± standard deviation) age was 56.1 ± 18.6 years, and the mean (± standard deviation) follow-up time was 16.7 ± 8.2 months. The average operation time was 30.33 minutes with a standard deviation of 14.80 minutes. The length of abdominal incision is 2.38 ± 0.42 cm, and the blood loss was about 26.3 ± 9.2 ml, including 2 cases of laparoscopic reposition of drift tube, 0 case of pipe blockage, 3 cases of fluid leakage, 1 case of peritoneal dialysis catheter tunnel infection, 4 cases of outlet infection, 12 occurrences of peritonitis, 121.3 patient months in peritonitis, and 0 times in omentum wrapping without bladder injury, incisional hernia, or intestinal injury.

Conclusion

Relative to open operation, the peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters with pneumoperitoneum needle puncture technique has the following advantages: simpler operation, shorter operation time, less bleeding, less injury, less complications, and higher safety. Moreover, there are no additional costs compared with open operation. Thus, the technique is recommended for clinical applications.

The "Half-Perc" technique using a simple modified metal trocar for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: results of a 3-year follow-up of 280 patients and a literature review

PURPOSE

There is an ongoing debate about the ideal technique for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A half-percutaneous ("Half-Perc") technique shares some of the advantages of both percutaneous technique and traditional open surgery. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility, safety, and effects of the "Half-Perc" technique for PD catheter placement, and to compare the clinical outcomes of the "Half-Perc" technique with various imaging-assisted percutaneous techniques from the current literature.

METHODS

We included 280 consecutive patients with ESRD who underwent the "Half-Perc" insertion of the first PD catheter between September 2016 and September 2019. We recorded baseline characteristics, operative parameters, catheter-related complications, catheter survival, and the reason behind PD cessation.

RESULTS

We included 174 men and 106 women, with a mean age of 50.4 years (range, 11-85 years). The mean operative time was 28.8 min (range, 15-38 min) and technical success rate was observed in 278 patients (99.3%). There were 28 episodes (10%) of mechanical complications with initial catheters occurring during the follow-up. Catheter malfunctions were the most common mechanical complication and were observed in 15 patients. Peritonitis was the most frequent catheter-related complication, with 32 episodes of peritonitis observed in 29 (10.4%) patients. After a mean follow-up period of 15.4 months (range, 2-36 months), 235 patients (83.9%) survived with their initial PD catheter by the end of the study. Of the 280 patients analyzed, 35 patients (12.5%) ceased PD at some stage during follow-up. The most common reason for PD cessation was kidney transplantation (18 patients (6.4%)), followed by death (9 patients (3.2%)) and switch to hemodialysis (HD) (7 patients (2.5%)), and recovery of renal failure (1 patient (0.4%)).

CONCLUSION

The "Half-Perc" technique, including a modified metal trocar, is a simple, safe, and effective method for PD catheter placement that can be used for patients with ESRD.

Percutaneous Versus Surgical Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background:

Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.

Objective:

To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.

Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting:

We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.

Patients:

Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.

Measurements:

We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.

Methods:

Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ² test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results:

Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I² = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I² = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.

Limitations:

Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).

Conclusions:

Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.

Comparison of Outcomes between Percutaneous and Surgical Placement of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters in Uremic Patients: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for inserting peritoneal dialysis catheters in uremic patients remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the current evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of percutaneous insertion methods compared to surgical methods.

METHOD

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. The primary outcome was defined as catheter survival. The secondary outcomes were mechanical and infectious complications related to catheter insertion.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were finally identified, including 2 randomized controlled trials. The pooled results of catheter survival, overall mechanical complications, and infectious complications were not significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.76-1.57, p = 0.62; OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.48-1.11, p = 0.14; and OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.37-1.09, p = 0.14, respectively). Comparison stratified by the blind percutaneous method versus open surgery indicated a lower overall number of mechanical complications (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.31-0.93, I2 = 72%) and malposition rate (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.34-0.90, I2 = 0%). The leakage rate was higher in the blind percutaneous group than in the open surgery group (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.72-3.79, I2 = 0%); the guided percutaneous method achieved a similar leakage risk to the surgical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The blind percutaneous method performed better with fewer overall mechanical complications and less malposition than open surgery. The leakage risk was higher in the blind percutaneous group, while the guided percutaneous placement group showed similar outcomes to the surgical method groups. Percutaneous methods also had a lower infection risk, which needs further evidence to be confirmed.

Surgical versus percutaneous catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No consensus currently exists regarding the optimal approach for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. We aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous and surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (end-of-search date: August 29th, 2020). We included studies comparing percutaneous (blind, under fluoroscopic/ultrasound guidance, and "half-perc") and surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement (open and laparoscopic) in terms of their infectious complications (peritonitis, tunnel/exit-site infections), mechanical complications (leakage, inflow/outflow obstruction, migration, hemorrhage, hernia, bowel perforation) and long-term outcomes (malfunction, removal, replacement, surgery required, and mortality).

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were identified, including thirty-two observational studies (twenty-six retrospective and six prospective) and two randomized controlled trials. Percutaneous placement was associated with significantly lower rates of tunnel/exit-site infection [relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91], catheter migration (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49, 0.95), and catheter removal (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88). The 2-week and 4-week rates of early tunnel/exit-site infection were also lower in the percutaneous group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.93 and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed regarding other outcomes, including catheter survival and mechanical complications.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the quality of published literature on the field of peritoneal dialysis catheter placement is poor, with a small percentage of studies being randomized clinical trials. Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter placement is a safe procedure and may result in fewer complications, such as tunnel/exit-site infections, and catheter migration, compared to surgical placement.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020154951.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion by Surgical Minilaparotomy: Outcome Analysis between Nephrologist and Surgeon

Surgical minilaparotomy technique of Tenckhoff catheter placement is rarely practiced by nephrologists. There is a scarcity of data comparing technique and outcomes of surgically inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters by surgeon and nephrologist. We retrospectively analyzed 105 Tenckhoff catheters inserted by surgical minilaparotomy ("S" [surgeon], n = 43 and "N" [nephrologist], n = 62) in end-stage renal disease. Comparative analysis of surgical technique, survivals, and complications between both groups was done. "N" group observed two major advantages; shorter break-in (P < 001) and early continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis rehabilitation. Cumulative catheter experience was 1749 catheter-months: 745 and 1004 catheter-months in "S" and "N" groups, respectively. "N" group had a better overall catheter and patient survival, and a statistically insignificant mechanical complications, seen mostly in obese and post-abdominal surgery patients, without fatality or catheter loss. Peritonitis rates (P = 0.21) and catheter removal due to refractory peritonitis (P = 0.81) were comparable. The technique used is practical and aids early break-in, yields better results, and later on, helps in easy and uncomplicated PDC removal as and when indicated. Mechanical complications, mostly bleeding, were managed conservatively without any catheter or patient loss. This method should be encouraged among nephrologists and nephrology residents.

Outcomes of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided placement versus laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters

Background

Several peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement techniques have been described. The objective of this study was to compare the fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance technique with the laparoscopic technique.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who had their first PDC placed between January 2005 and June 2016. We compared the outcomes of the fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided catheter placement technique (radiologic group, n = 50) with the laparoscopic catheter placement technique (laparoscopic group, n = 190). The primary endpoint was complication-free catheter survival at 365 days. Secondary endpoints were complication-free catheter survival at 90 days, overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days, median days to first complication and median days to catheter removal.

Results

In the radiologic group, the complication-free catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 64% and 48%, respectively, while in the laparoscopic group it was 71% (P = 0.374) and 53% (P = 0.494), respectively. Catheter malfunction was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (30%) compared with the radiologic group (16%, P = 0.048). The overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 76% and 52%, respectively, in the radiologic group, while in the laparoscopic group it was 88% (P = 0.0514) an 48% (P = 0.652), respectively. There was no significant difference in the median days to first complication and the median days to catheter removal between the two groups (P = 0.71).

Conclusion

The technique of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided PDC placement is a clinically effective and safe alternative to laparoscopic catheter placement with similar survival and complication rates.

Modified Simple Peritoneal Wall Anchor Technique (PWAT) in Peritoneal Dialysis

♦ BACKGROUND: Outflow obstruction, a common complication in patients with peritoneal dialysis (PD), usually results in unnecessary catheter removal or replacement. This study describes a modified simple method of anchoring a PD catheter on the anterior peritoneal wall without using a laparoscopic system (peritoneal wall anchor technique, PWAT). ♦ METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive PD catheter insertions, and compared the catheter survival rate between the traditional method and the modified simple PWAT. The traditional method was used in 54 cases and the modified simple PWAT was used in 17 cases. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of surgical catheter repair because of outflow obstruction by day 365. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of catheter migration with obstruction requiring any interventions, including the alpha-replacement method by day 365. Catheter survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. ♦ RESULTS: Migration-free catheter survival was significantly (p = 0.02) higher in the PWAT group (100%, 17/17) than in the traditional group (72.2%, 39/54). Catheter survival without surgical repair or cessation of PD was also significantly (p = 0.04) higher in the PWAT group (100%, 17/17) than in the traditional group (77.8%, 42/54). Similarly, migration-free and surgery-free catheter survival rates in cases with a straight-type catheter in the PWAT group were significantly higher than those in cases with a straight-type catheter in the traditional group. ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the modified simple PWAT provides a better catheter survival rate than the traditional method by preventing catheter migration with obstruction in PD.

Surgical versus percutaneous techniques for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: A meta-analysis of the outcomes

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective method of renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients. The PD catheter could be inserted by surgical (open surgery/laparoscopic-assisted) or percutaneous techniques. However, the efficacy of the techniques, including catheter survival and catheter related complications, is still controversial.

Method

The dataset was defined by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database that had been published until July 2014. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.2.6.

Result

The final analysis was conducted on 10 studies (2 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and 8 retrospective studies), including 1626 patients. The pooled data demonstrate no significant difference in 1-year catheter survival (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.52–2.10, P = 0.90) between surgical and percutaneous groups. However, the sensitivity analysis of the RCTs demonstrated that the incidence of overall infectious (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.64, P = 0.003) and overall mechanical complications (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.15–0.68, P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the percutaneous groups than the surgical groups. Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in the rates of peritonitis, tunnel and exit site infection, leakage, inflow-outflow obstruction, bleeding and hernia by comparing the methods.

Conclusion

The results showed that the placement modality did not affect 1-year catheter survival. Percutaneous catheter placement is as safe and effective as surgical technique.

•

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective and less costly method of renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients (ESRD). Peritoneal dialysis is more effective in preserves renal function while awaiting renal transplantation, faster restoration of diuresis and better quality of life as a home treatment than hemodialysis.

•

Currently, there is no consensus for preferring type of catheter and the catheter placement method because of each modality has its pros, cons, and post-operative complication. Thus, the authors performed a meta-analysis an attempt to clarify the comparison of the outcomes of both techniques (such as a 1-year catheter survival, infectious complication, and mechanical complication).

Percutaneous versus Surgical Insertion of PD Catheters in Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Several small studies have suggested that the percutaneous method of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion is effective and has a lower complication rate than surgical techniques (open, laparoscopic or peritoneoscopic), although no randomized, controlled study has compared these methods. Our objective was to compare percutaneous PD catheter insertion vs surgical placement in terms of 1-year catheter survival, catheter dysfunction, fluid leak and incidence of peritonitis.

Methods

We searched Medline for English-language literature from 1966 through June 2014, along with national conference proceedings and reference lists of all included publications to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were having a measure of catheter survival at 1 year, catheter dysfunction, peritonitis rate per patient-month or fluid leak as outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were not in English or if they included pediatric patients. Random effects models were used to derive the pooled risk ratios, differences in patency and their variations.

Results

Thirteen studies with a total of 2,681 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in 1-year catheter survival in percutaneous vs surgical PD catheter placement (relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.11, p = 0.19). Catheter dysfunction also did not differ significantly between the groups (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.57-1.29, p = 0.46). The prevalence of peritoneal fluid leak also was similar for percutaneous and surgical groups (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.58-2.09, p = 0.77). However, there was a significant lower incidence of peritonitis among those with percutaneous placement (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.62-0.96, p = 0.02). Significant heterogeneity was detected across studies ( I2 = 78.4%, p<0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in catheter survival between percutaneous and surgical placement of PD catheters. Whether there are significant benefits from percutaneous placement in terms of peritonitis rates requires further robust studies. These findings have significant implications for future design of clinical trials in the placement of PD catheters and the delivery of dialysis-related services.

Minimally invasive fluoroscopic percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter salvage

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) dysfunction can often be treated fluoroscopically by manipulation with wire, balloon or stiff stylet, saving surgical intervention for refractory cases. We describe an enhanced percutaneous approach to PDC salvage that can lead to a more definitive intervention and salvage for cases refractory to fluoroscopic manipulation.

METHODS

In five cases of PD catheter malfunction, the deep cuff was dissected free after a 0.035 hydrophilic wire was passed into the peritoneum through the PDC. Only the intraperitoneal portion of the PDC was explanted. The PDC was cleared of obstruction and omentum. The intraperitoneal portion of the PDC was reimplanted over wire via a peel-away sheath and the deep cuff sutured.

RESULTS

Omental entrapment was present in three of five patients and fibrin occlusion in four of the five cases. All catheters were repaired successfully by the described technique. Post procedure, 3-5 days of lower volume, recumbent PD exchanges were performed prior to full-dose PD. No perioperative complications or leaks were noted. All PDCs were patent at 6 months. One patient required laparoscopy for recurrent omental wrapping 3 months post intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

PDC salvage in this manner is a cost-effective alternative to laparoscopic repair of PDCs failing catheter manipulation. The infection barrier afforded by the original superficial cuff and subcutaneous tunnel is maintained. PD can be resumed immediately. Only refractory cases need laparoscopy. This procedure allows for a more definitive correction of catheter migration and obstruction, avoids placement of a new PDC or temporary hemodialysis, is cost-effective and expands percutaneous options for dysfunctional PD catheters.

The outcomes of percutaneous versus open placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis catheters (PDCs) can be inserted by a percutaneous, open surgical, or laparoscopic approach. Considerable controversy surrounds the mode of catheter placement and its impact on technical success. We compared the complications and survival characteristics of PDCs that were inserted by the open approach versus those inserted percutaneously.

METHODS

We reviewed the outcomes of 167 patients who received PDCs between September 2009 and February 2012. Of these, 89 were placed percutaneously and 78 were placed by open surgical techniques. The mechanical complication rates, including catheter bleeding, wrapping, migration, leakage, and technical failure of intraperitoneal placement were compared between the two groups. Additionally, peritonitis episodes, exit site infection rates, and tunnel infection rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of one or more previous intra-abdominal surgeries was significantly higher in the open group (4.5 percutaneous vs 21.7 % open; P = 0.001). Although the overall number of complications did not differ between the two groups, the incidence of early mechanical complications (11.2 vs 0 %; P = 0.002) and the number of catheter removals due to mechanical complications (7.9 vs 1.3 %; P = 0.047) were higher in the percutaneous group. Of the 15 mechanical complications in the percutaneous group, one third were due to technical failures compared to none in the open group (5.6 vs 0 %; P = 0.034). The 1 year survival rate of the PDCs for the percutaneous and open groups was 89.9 and 93.3 %, respectively (P = 0.249).

CONCLUSIONS

The placement modality did not affect catheter survival. However, early mechanical complications, including technical failures, were more frequent in the percutaneous group, despite the proportion of patients with a history of one or more previous intra-abdominal surgeries being significantly lower in that group. The direct visualized open method of catheter insertion may provide the most reliable and secure access for a PDC.

Infrastructure requirements for an urgent-start peritoneal dialysis program

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease nearing dialysis but without pre-established access almost uniformly initiate dialysis with a temporary central venous catheter. These catheters are associated with high rates of infection and flow disturbances, requiring removal and subsequent replacement. Many of these patients might be candidates for peritoneal dialysis (PD), but because of the absence of prior catheter placement, the default initial modality is hemodialysis. Recent reports, however, have demonstrated the feasibility of initiating PD urgently despite the late referral for access placement. Urgent-start PD clinical pathways require a unique infrastructure and treatment approach. This article reviews the salient features required to establish an urgent-start PD program.

Best practices consensus protocol for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement by interventional radiologists

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be placed by interventional radiologists, an approach that might offer scheduling efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, and a minimally invasive procedure. In the United States, changes in the dialysis reimbursement structure by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are expected to result in the increased use of PD, a less costly dialysis modality that offers patients the opportunity to receive dialysis in the home setting and to have more independence for travel and work schedules, and that preserves vascular access for future dialysis options. Placement of PD catheters by interventional radiologists might therefore be increasingly requested by nephrology practices, given that recent publications have demonstrated the favorable impact on PD practices of an interventional radiology PD placement capability. Earlier reports of interventional radiology PD catheter placement came from single-center practices with smaller reported experiences. The need for a larger consensus document that attempts to establish best demonstrated practices for radiologists is evident. The radiologists submitting this consensus document represent a combined experience of more than 1000 PD catheter placements. The authors submit these consensus-proposed best demonstrated practices for placement of PD catheters by interventional radiologists under ultrasonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. This technique might allow for expeditious placement of permanent PD catheters in late-referred patients with end-stage renal disease, thus facilitating urgent-start PD and avoiding the need for temporary vascular access catheters.

Surgical outcomes analysis of pediatric peritoneal dialysis catheter function in a rural region

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the experience with peritoneal dialysis (PD) at a high-volume, single center institution that supports a rural population.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2010, 88 children (median age: 1.98 years, [range: 2 days-20.2 years]) received 134 PD catheters for the management of acute and chronic renal failure. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of primary PD catheter failure (replacement or revision within 60 days). Operative technique, longitudinal outcomes, and time intervals to transplantation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median time to transplant from the institution of dialysis was 1.4 years [range: 0.3-6.4 years]. Primary catheter failure occurred in 24.6% of cases. Infants less than 6 months of age demonstrated an increased incidence of primary catheter failure (p = 0.02). The operative technique for catheter placement was not associated with the incidence of primary failure. Postoperative complications included peritonitis (22.7%), omental plugging (11.9%), pericatheter drainage (9.0%), and exit site infection (3.0%).

CONCLUSION

Peritoneal dialysis provides a safe and effective renal replacement therapy for regional pediatric centers that serve a rural population. However, primary catheter failure rates remain high at 24.6%. The surgical technique for placement had no effect on this failure rate in our patient population. Infants less than 6 months of age are at increased risk for primary catheter failure and warrant intensive surveillance.

[Complications after placement of peritoneal catheter]

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis is one of the modalities used for treatment of end-stage chronic kidney failure. Nowadays, this method is complementary to haemodialysis and renal transplantation. Owing to the rich vascularization of the peritoneum, it is used in the processes of osmosis and diffusion, enabling the removal of uremic material from the body. The procedure includes introduction of peritoneal fluid via the peritoneal catheter.

COMPLICATIONS

The catheter is placed through the anterior abdominal wall with its tip positioned in the small pelvis. There are several techniques for catheter placement considered minimally invasive, which, however, may be associated with various complications. These complications can be divided into mechanical (catheter dysfunction, cuff protrusion, hernia, dialysate leaks, visceral perforation) and infectious (early peritonitis, exit site or tunnel infection, surgical wounds). In most cases, such complications are rare and can be successfully managed using conservative therapy; however, in some situations severe complications can endanger the life of the patient. On-time recognition of complications, particularly in patients at risk, is of paramount importance for an effective treatment. The development of complications can increase the morbidity and the chance of treatment failure, and therefore transfer to haemodialysis.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative evaluation and determination of the risk factors as well as the early recognition and adequate management of complications are essential in their prevention.

Fluoroscopically guided percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: single center experience and review of the literature

Experiences with minimally invasive techniques for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement are being increasingly described. Percutaneous placement of catheters using ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance has reduced the risk of complications and has led to successful long-term catheter function. An interventional radiology catheter placement capability was established at our facility and it serves as the basis for this report. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients in a tertiary care center in Northern California who required PD between July 2005 and October 2008. Patients underwent PD catheter placement in an interventional radiology suite by the radiologist using a percutaneous Seldinger technique that was guided by fluoroscopy. Sixty-four patients between the ages of 25 and 90 were referred for fluoroscopic PD catheter placement by an interventional radiologist. If clinically indicated, PD was initiated within days of catheter placement. Minor complications were noted: four with minor bleeding, three with catheter migration, and one with temporary exit-site leakage. No bowel or bladder perforations were encountered. Fluoroscopically guided PD catheter placement by interventional radiologists can be a safe and cost-effective strategy to initiate acute or chronic PD. This approach could reduce the need for temporary vascular access and expedite the initiation of PD therapy by eliminating the delays in catheter placement often associated with surgical consultation and operating room scheduling.

Who should place peritoneal dialysis catheters?

BACKGROUND

Nephrologists are often thwarted in their attempts to grow their peritoneal dialysis programs because of suboptimal surgeon performance in placing catheters. A rallying call is heard among nephrologists to step up to the role of dialysis access providers.

OBJECTIVE

What factors influence the practicability of nephrologists becoming primary dialysis access providers? Why have surgeons failed their task and can anything motivate them to change their performance and improve outcomes?

METHODS

While the issues are universal, this analysis focuses on current practice data from the United States. Evidence reviewed includes dialysis center size and annual new starts, profile of specialties performing catheter placement, nephrology workforce capacity, catheter implantation methodology, resource utilization for peritoneal access, and surgeon performance.

RESULTS

The current nephrology workforce is running at maximum capacity and fellowship training programs will struggle to meet additional demands. Nephrology training programs are often deficient in providing adequate experience in peritoneal dialysis management. Only 2.3% of peritoneal catheters are placed by nephrologists. The best catheter outcomes are produced by laparoscopic methods used by surgeons. Compared to other catheter placement techniques, laparoscopy enables a larger candidate pool of patients. Nonetheless, suboptimal surgical performances are related to inadequate training, low procedure volume, and poor reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

It is improbable that nephrologists can expand the scope of their practice to assume the additional role of dialysis access providers. The performance of the existing surgical workforce can be enhanced through medical society-sponsored educational activities, channeling access procedures to designated surgeons, and improved remuneration through outcomes-based incentive programs.