[Hospitalization of peritoneal dialysis patients: the impact of peritonitis episodes on the hospitalization rate]

Antibiotic availability for outpatient treatment of acute peritonitis in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients: A case series

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a commonly used form of renal replacement therapy for patients that have reached end-stage renal disease. Acute bacterial peritonitis (ABP) in chronic PD patients results in pain, increased costs, injury to the peritoneal membrane, and PD modality failure. Optimal antibiotic treatment of acute bacterial peritonitis (ABP) in chronic PD patients should be intraperitoneal, outpatient-based, appropriate, prompt, and uninterrupted. We investigated the frequency of and predisposition to suboptimal antibiotic courses for ABP in our chronic PD patients.

METHODS

Twenty-four charts of patients with ABP were reviewed, to test the null hypothesis that all ABP patients received antibiotics optimally.

RESULTS

After 12 patient exclusions (hospitalization), 9 suboptimal antibiotic events were detected in 6 of the remaining 12 patients, disproving the null hypothesis (p < 0.02). Most suboptimal antibiotics courses (7 of 9) resulted from delays and/or gaps in therapy or antibiotics prescribed outside of community standard. Suboptimal antibiotic events occurred on nights and weekends rather than during the workweek (p < 0.02) and in the emergency room rather than the PD clinic (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal ABP antibiotic therapy occurs commonly and is influenced by time and location of presentation and lack of knowledge by patients and physicians. Prevention of suboptimal antibiotic courses in the treatment of ABP in chronic PD patients includes education of patients and providers and allowing emergency rooms and PD clinics to dispense antibiotics for home use.

The effect of radiological imaging on treatment delay and hospitalisation in patients with peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis: A secondary analysis of the PROMPT study

BACKGROUND

In peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis (peritonitis), delayed antibiotic therapy is associated with adverse outcomes. Identifying barriers to timely treatment may improve outcomes.

AIM

To determine the impact of radiological investigations on treatment delay and predictors of hospitalisation and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with presumed peritonitis in Western Australia.

RESULTS

In 153 episodes of peritonitis, 79 (51.6%) resulted in admission with a median LOS of 3 days (Q1, Q3: 1, 6). In a multivariable model, significant predictors of admission were abnormal exit-site (odds ration (OR) 5.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4, 23.6; p = 0.02), failure to detect a cloudy bag (OR 11.9; 95%CI: 3.2, 44.7; p < 0.001), female sex (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.4, 9.7; p = 0.027), radiological imaging within 24 h (OR 8.8; 95% CI: 2.2, 34.8; p = 0.002) and contact with ambulant care facility (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.98; p = 0.04). Imaging within 24 h of presentation occurred in 41 (27%) episodes of peritonitis, mostly plain X-rays (91%), of which 83% were clinically irrelevant. Imaging performed within 24 h of presentation increased the median time to antibiotic treatment (2.9 h (Q1, Q3: 1.6, 6.4) vs 2.0 h (Q1, Q3: 1, 3.8; p = 0.046)). Imaging performed prior to administering antibiotics significantly increased the median time to treatment (4.7 h (Q1, Q3: 2.9, 25) vs 1.5 h (Q1, Q3: 0.75, 2.5; p < 0.001)) in those where imaging followed antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of all presentations with peritonitis result in hospital admission. Radiological imaging was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation, potentially contributes to treatment delay, and was mostly clinically unnecessary. When required, imaging should follow antibiotic therapy.

Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Infection Rates and Outcomes: Results From the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS)

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis carries high morbidity for PD patients. Understanding the characteristics and risk factors for peritonitis can guide regional development of prevention strategies. We describe peritonitis rates and the associations of selected facility practices with peritonitis risk among countries participating in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS).

STUDY DESIGN

Observational prospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

7,051 adult PD patients in 209 facilities across 7 countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States).

EXPOSURES

Facility characteristics (census count, facility age, nurse to patient ratio) and selected facility practices (use of automated PD, use of icodextrin or biocompatible PD solutions, antibiotic prophylaxis strategies, duration of PD training).

OUTCOMES

Peritonitis rate (by country, overall and variation across facilities), microbiology patterns.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Poisson rate estimation, proportional rate models adjusted for selected patient case-mix variables.

RESULTS

2,272 peritonitis episodes were identified in 7,051 patients (crude rate, 0.28 episodes/patient-year). Facility peritonitis rates were variable within each country and exceeded 0.50/patient-year in 10% of facilities. Overall peritonitis rates, in episodes per patient-year, were 0.40 (95% CI, 0.36-0.46) in Thailand, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.32-0.46) in the United Kingdom, 0.35 (95% CI, 0.30-0.40) in Australia/New Zealand, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.26-0.32) in Canada, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.25-0.30) in Japan, and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.27) in the United States. The microbiology of peritonitis was similar across countries, except in Thailand, where Gram-negative infections and culture-negative peritonitis were more common. Facility size was positively associated with risk for peritonitis in Japan (rate ratio [RR] per 10 patients, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09). Lower peritonitis risk was observed in facilities that had higher automated PD use (RR per 10 percentage points greater, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00), facilities that used antibiotics at catheter insertion (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99), and facilities with PD training duration of 6 or more (vs <6) days (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96). Lower peritonitis risk was seen in facilities that used topical exit-site mupirocin or aminoglycoside ointment, but this association did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.01).

LIMITATIONS

Sampling variation, selection bias (rate estimates), and residual confounding (associations).

CONCLUSIONS

Important international differences exist in the risk for peritonitis that may result from varied and potentially modifiable treatment practices. These findings may inform future guidelines in potentially setting lower maximally acceptable peritonitis rates.

PD vs HD in Post-Economic Crisis Greece-Differences in Patient Characteristics and Estimation of Therapy Cost

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate patient characteristics and make an estimation of the cost of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) to Greek society during the economic crisis.

METHODS

We recorded the characteristics and the total cost of dialysis treatment in 100 patients on PD and 100 on HD. Total costs included dialysis procedure, consumables, drugs, laboratory tests, food, and transportation fees (only HD), covered by patients' insurance. Also included were medical and administrative salaries, purchase and maintenance of equipment and sanitary material, all covered by the state hospital.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 64.5 ± 16.8 years (PD) and 62.8 ± 15.1 (HD) (p < 0,001). The most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was diabetes (32% for PD and 24% for HD patients). A total of 35% of the PD patients were employed vs 4% of the HD patients (p < 0,001). The mean distance from home for PD patients was 41.6 ± 17.3 km, while for HD patients, it was 9.4 ± 1.5 km (p < 0,001). Mean monthly cost for PD and HD treatment per patient was €4,019.20 ± 1,126.30 and €3,254.30 ± 37.50, respectively, both fully covered by patients' insurance. Mean monthly cost for PD or HD dialysis unit maintenance was €11,660.80 and €56,270.50, respectively, also fully covered by the state.

CONCLUSION

There is likely to be a considerable difference in terms of total cost of PD vs HD therapy, owing to the fact that the operational cost of a PD unit appears to be significantly lower than that of a HD unit.

[Peritoneal dialysis: a satisfactory experience of a misknown technique in Rabat University Hospital]

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a renal replacement therapy method that could be proposed in the first intention for the treatment of end stage renal disease (ESRD). The aim of the study is to describe the beginning and development of PD in "Ibn Sina" University Hospital in Rabat, and to evaluate the outcome of the patients treated by this technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

It is a descriptive study between July 2006 and December 2009, including 41 ESRD patients treated by PD. PD parameters as well as clinical and biological data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The average age of our patients was 45.8±17.4-year-old. The sex-ratio (M/F) was 1.9. Professionally active patients (50%) as well as students (14) kept their activity throughout the study. Initially, 68.2% of the patients had hypertension whereas, at the end of the study, only 25.8% still suffered from hypertension. A better quality of dialysis as well as the conservation of a residual renal function were ensured in PD with 92.6% of the patients having a residual clearance higher than 2 mL/min. A correction of anemia was noted with higher rates of hemoglobin after the beginning of the treatment by peritoneal dialysis. None of our cases presented a denutrition and all our diabetic patients did not worsen with the exchanges in PD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

PD has recently been introduced in Morocco. It must be encouraged and sustained. In our study, we noted a good quality of dialysis and a conservation of the residual renal function. These results should encourage the promotion of this technique, especially that there is an inequality of distribution of hemodialysis centers in Morocco and the inability to deal with all ESRD patients. Furthermore, renal transplantation is not always possible in our country. For that, a specific program of information of both generalists and specialists, especially nephrologists must be established.

Reimbursement and economic factors influencing dialysis modality choice around the world

The worldwide incidence of kidney failure is on the rise and treatment is costly; thus, the global burden of illness is growing. Kidney failure patients require either a kidney transplant or dialysis to maintain life. This review focuses on the economics of dialysis. Alternative dialysis modalities are haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Important economic factors influencing dialysis modality selection include financing, reimbursement and resource availability. In general, where there is little or no facility or physician reimbursement or payment for PD, the share of PD is very low. Regarding resource availability, when centre HD capacity is high, there is an incentive to use that capacity rather than place patients on home dialysis. In certain countries, there is interest in revising the reimbursement structure to favour home-based therapies, including PD and home HD. Modality selection is influenced by employment status, with an association between being employed and PD as the modality choice. Cost drivers differ for PD and HD. PD is driven mainly by variable costs such as solutions and tubing, while HD is driven mainly by fixed costs of facility space and staff. Many cost comparisons of dialysis modalities have been conducted. A key factor to consider in reviewing cost comparisons is the perspective of the analysis because different costs are relevant for different perspectives. In developed countries, HD is generally more expensive than PD to the payer. Additional research is needed in the developing world before conclusive statements may be made regarding the relative costs of HD and PD.