Comparison of double-bag and Y-set disconnect systems in CAPD

Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis.This is an update of a review first published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to determine if modifications of the transfer set (Y-set or double bag systems) used in CAPD exchanges are associated with a reduction in peritonitis and an improvement in other relevant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of last search: 22 October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing double bag, Y-set and standard peritoneal dialysis (PD) exchange systems in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by a single investigator onto a standard form and analysed by Review Manager. Analysis was by a random effects model and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve eligible trials with a total of 991 randomised patients were identified. Despite the large total number of patients, few trials covered the same interventions, small numbers of patients were enrolled in each trial and the methodological quality was suboptimal. Y-set and twin-bag systems were superior to conventional spike systems (7 trials, 485 patients, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.77) in preventing peritonitis in PD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Disconnect systems should be the preferred exchange systems in CAPD.

Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage renal disease

BACKGROUND

Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to determine if modifications of the transfer set (Y-set or double bag systems) used in CAPD exchanges are associated with a reduction in peritonitis and an improvement in other relevant outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A broad search strategy was employed which attempted to identify all RCTs or quasi-RCTs relevant to the management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Five electronic databases were searched (Medline 1966-1999, EMBASE 1984-1999, CINAHL 1982-1996, BIOSIS 1985-1996 and the Cochrane Library), authors of included studies and relevant biomedical companies were contacted, reference lists of identified RCTs and relevant narrative reviews were screened and Kidney International 1980-1997 was hand searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing double bag, Y-set and standard CAPD exchange systems in patients with ESRD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by a single investigator onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager 4.0.4. Odds Ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and a (Weighted) Mean Difference (WMD) for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve eligible trials with a total of 991 randomised patients were identified. In trials comparing either the Y-set or double bag systems with the standard systems significantly fewer patients (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46) experienced peritonitis and the number of patient-months on CAPD per episode of peritonitis were consistently greater. When the double bag systems were compared with the Y-set systems significantly fewer patients experienced peritonitis (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71) and the numbers of patient-months on CAPD/ episode of peritonitis were also greater.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Double bag systems should be the preferred exchange systems in CAPD.