Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis Starts for ESRD: Initial Multicenter Experiences in the United States

Pericatheter Leak Associated With Earlier Peritoneal Dialysis Initiation Does Not Influence Long-Term Outcomes

Introduction

Internationally, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is increasingly being commenced within 2 weeks of catheter insertion. Studies are warranted to evaluate outcomes of this strategy.

Methods

This study examines outcomes of early-start PD (ESPD) and conventional-start PD (CSPD), commencing at ≤14 days and >14 days after catheter insertion, respectively. All adults with kidney failure within a large metropolitan PD unit initiating PD through a new catheter, inserted using laparoscopic or modified Seldinger technique, between August 2019 and August 2022, were included in this retrospective observational study. Demographic data and episodes of infectious and mechanical complications were collected using electronic medical records. Analysis was conducted using analysis of variance and Chi-square testing. A P-value < 0.05 was significant with Bonferroni correction performed where relevant. Kaplan-Meier and competing risks analyses were performed for time to PD-related peritonitis and transfer to hemodialysis.

Results

A total of 297 patients (70% male, mean age 58.7 years) were included, with 130 (43.8%) patients undertaking ESPD. Most patients had laparoscopically inserted catheters (65.3%) and 65 patients (22.0%) received prior hemodialysis. When compared to CSPD, ESPD was associated with a higher number of pericatheter leaks (6.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.003), with otherwise similar complication episodes and no significant difference with respect to time to PD-related peritonitis or transfer to hemodialysis. Catheter insertion technique or prior hemodialysis treatment did not significantly influence outcomes.

Conclusion

ESPD is associated with increased pericatheter leaks when compared to CSPD, with an otherwise similar complication profile.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD

Introduction

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) shows promise for urgent-start dialysis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with automated PD (APD) having advantages. However, there is limited multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence comparing APD with temporary hemodialysis (HD) for this indication in China.

Methods

This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications.

Results

The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424).

Conclusion

For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.

Comparison of Unplanned/Urgent-Start Versus Conventional-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation, whether conventional-start (planned) or urgent-start (unplanned), may impact the outcomes of PD and the rate of associated complications in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of unplanned/urgent-start PD versus conventional-start PD in this cohort of patients. Electronic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases was done from inception until July 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of unplanned/urgent-start and conventional-start PD in CKD patients. Outcomes of interest included mechanical complications, post-procedure infections, mortality, and transfer to hemodialysis. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and the influence of individual studies on the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were evaluated. Twenty-seven studies were finally included in the review. The overall risk of post-procedure infectious was comparable for both PD initiation methods (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.83-1.34). Similarly, the risks for peritonitis and exit site infections did not differ significantly. However, urgent-start PD correlated with a significantly higher risk of overall mechanical complications (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23-2.34). Specifically, the risk for leaks was notably higher (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.67-3.65) in the urgent-start group compared to the conventional-start PD group. Urgent-start PD correlated with significantly increased mortality rates (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.39-2.41). There was no difference in the likelihood of technique survival and transfer to hemodialysis. Both urgent-start and conventional-start PD correlated with similar risks of overall infectious complications. Urgent-start PD resulted in significantly increased risks of mechanical complications and mortality. Our findings emphasize the need for meticulous planning and consideration when opting for PD initiation.

Prognosis of urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal timing for the initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after catheter placement.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

EXACT DATE OF DATA COLLECTION

From inception till July 31, 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess the outcomes and safety of unplanned PD initiation (<14/7 days after catheter insertion) in cohort studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 3054 participants were included. (1) The risk of unplanned initiation of leakage and Obstruction was no difference in both the break-in period (BI) <14 and BI < 7 groups. (2) Catheter displacement was more likely to occur in the emergency initiation group with BI < 7. (3) No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding infectious complications. (4) There was no difference in transition to HD between patients with BI < 7 and BI < 14 d.

CONCLUSION

Infectious complications of unplanned initiation of peritoneal dialysis did not differ from planned initiation. Emergency initiation in the BI < 7 group had higher catheter displacement, but heterogeneity was higher. There were no differences in leakage or obstruction in either group. Catheter survival was the same for emergency initiation of peritoneal dialysis compared with planned initiation of peritoneal dialysis and did not increase the risk of conversion to hemodialysis.

REGISTRATION

This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, number: CRD42023431369).

Risk factors for mortality within 6 mo in patients with diabetes undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk of early mortality of patients who start dialysis urgently is high; however, in patients with diabetes undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD), the risk of, and risk factors for, early mortality are unknown.

AIM

To identify risk factors for mortality during high-risk periods in patients with diabetes undergoing USPD.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 568 patients with diabetes, aged ≥ 18 years, who underwent USPD at one of five Chinese centers between 2013 and 2019. We divided the follow-up period into two survival phases: The first 6 mo of USPD therapy and the months thereafter. We compared demographic and baseline clinical data of living and deceased patients during each period. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for all-cause mortality according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to identify risk factors for mortality within the first 6 mo and after 6 mo of USPD.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients died within the first 6 mo, accounting for the highest proportion of mortalities (26.62%) during the entire follow-up period. Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of mortality within 6 mo (26.83%) and after 6 mo (31.86%). The risk of mortality not only within the first 6 mo but also after the first 6 mo was higher for patients with obvious baseline heart failure symptoms than for those with mild or no heart failure symptoms. Independent risk factors for mortality within the first 6 mo were advanced age [hazard ratio (HR: 1.908; 95%CI: 1.400-2.600; P < 0.001), lower baseline serum creatinine level (HR: 0.727; 95%CI: 0.614-0.860; P < 0.001), higher baseline serum phosphorus level (HR: 3.162; 95%CI: 1.848-5.409; P < 0.001), and baseline NYHA class III-IV (HR: 2.148; 95%CI: 1.063-4.340; P = 0.033). Independent risk factors for mortality after 6 mo were advanced age (HR: 1.246; 95%CI: 1.033-1.504; P = 0.022) and baseline NYHA class III-IV (HR: 2.015; 95%CI: 1.298-3.130; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

To reduce the risk of mortality within the first 6 mo of USPD in patients with diabetes, controlling the serum phosphorus level and improving cardiac function are recommended.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Is there room for more?

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still offered to a minor subset of patients. One way to increment the utilization rates of this technique is the early start of PD after catheter placement, but there are several concerns related to this approach.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis in a single-center; 52 patients, 34.6% of the patients started in the first 14 days after catheter placement (Urgent start Group - Group 1) and percentage started PD in a conventional mode (Non-urgent start Group - Group 2). Baseline data, short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes, mechanical complications and infectious episodes were compared among Groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, Group 1 had an higher Charlson Comobidity Index (CCI). Exchange volumes were significantly lower in Group 1, as expected. Short-term outcomes were equal except for iPTH and albumin, both lower in urgent-start Group (p<0.05). Episodes of leak, catheter dysfunction and rate of infections were similar among Groups (p>0.05). In Urgent-start Group we didn't observed a higher risk for the first peritonitis episode (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.24-1.99; p>0.05), higher dropout rate or risk to quit the technique (long rank test, p>0.05; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29-1.13; p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to our observations, urgent-start PD seems to be a valid and safe alternative to urgent hemodialysis with central venous catheter and should be offered to patients without major contraindications.

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Is there room for more?

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still offered to a minor subset of patients. One way to increment the utilization rates of this technique is the early start of PD after catheter placement, but there are several concerns related to this approach.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis in a single-center; 52 patients, 34.6% of the patients started in the first 14 days after catheter placement (Urgent start Group - Group 1) and percentage started PD in a conventional mode (Non-urgent start Group - Group 2). Baseline data, short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes, mechanical complications and infectious episodes were compared among Groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, Group 1 had an higher Charlson Comobidity Index (CCI). Exchange volumes were significantly lower in Group 1, as expected. Short-term outcomes were equal except for iPTH and albumin, both lower in urgent-start Group (p<0.05). Episodes of leak, catheter dysfunction and rate of infections were similar among Groups (p>0.05). In Urgent-start Group we didn't observed a higher risk for the first peritonitis episode (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.24-1.99; p>0.05), higher dropout rate or risk to quit the technique (long rank test, p>0.05; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29-1.13; p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to our observations, urgent-start PD seems to be a valid and safe alternative to urgent hemodialysis with central venous catheter and should be offered to patients without major contraindications.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus conventional-start peritoneal dialysis for people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis initiation for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring urgent dialysis without established permanent dialysis access. Recently, several small studies have reported comparable patient outcomes between urgent-start and conventional-start PD.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD (within 2 weeks of catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD ( ≥ 2 weeks of catheter insertion) treatment in children and adults CKD patients requiring long-term dialysis were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and quality of studies were examined by two independent authors. The authors contacted investigators for additional information. Summary estimates of effect were examined using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate for the data. The certainty of evidence for individual outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (2953 participants) were included in this review, which included one multicentre RCT (122 participants) and 15 non-RCTs (2831 participants): 13 cohort studies (2671 participants) and 2 case-control studies (160 participants). The review included unadjusted data for analyses due to paucity of studies reporting adjusted data. In low certainty evidence, urgent-start PD may increase dialysate leak (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.78) compared with conventional-start PD which translated into an absolute number of 210 more leaks per 1000 (95% CI 40 to 635). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases catheter blockage (4 cohort studies, 1214 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.43; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.13), catheter malposition (6 cohort studies, 1353 participants: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.32; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 13.96), and PD dialysate flow problems (3 cohort studies, 937 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.14) compared to conventional-start PD. In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases exit-site infection (2 cohort studies, 337 participants: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.61; 1 case-control study, 104 participants RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50), exit-site bleeding (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.03 to 16.81; 1 cohort study, 27 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.32), peritonitis (7 cohort studies, 1497 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46; 2 case-control studies, participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.51), catheter readjustment (2 cohort studies, 739 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.02), or reduces technique survival (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20; 8 cohort studies, 1668 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD increased death (any cause) (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53; 7 cohort studies, 1509 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.3; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.02; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on tunnel tract infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CKD who require dialysis urgently without ready-to-use dialysis access in place, urgent-start PD may increase the risk of dialysate leak and has uncertain effects on catheter blockage, malposition or readjustment, PD dialysate flow problems, infectious complications, exit-site bleeding, technique survival, and patient survival compared with conventional-start PD.

Outcome and Safety of Unplanned-Start Peritoneal Dialysis according to Break-In Periods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The best timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation after catheter implantation is still controversial. It is necessary to explore whether there exists a waiting period to minimize the risk of complications.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were searched in multiple electronic databases published from inception to February 29, 2020, to identify cohort studies for evaluating the outcome and safety of unplanned-start PD (<14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies with a total of 2,401 patients were enrolled. We found that early-start PD was associated with higher prevalence of leaks (RR: 2.67, 95% CI, 1.55-4.61) and omental wrap (RR: 3.28, 95% CI, 1.14-9.39). Furthermore, patients of unplanned-start PD in APD group have higher risk of leaks, while those in CAPD group have a higher risk of leaks, omental wrap, and catheter malposition. In shorter break-in period (BI) group, the risk of suffering from catheter obstruction and malposition was higher for patients who started dialysis within 7 days after the surgery than for patients within 7-14 days. No significant differences were found in peritonitis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27) and exit-site infections (RR: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.72-1.75). However, shorter BI was associated with higher risk of mortality and transition to hemodialysis (HD) while worsen early technical survival, with pooled RR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.52-3.02), 1.42 (95% CI, 1.09-1.85) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.99), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that patients receiving unplanned-start PD may have higher risks of mechanical complications, transition to HD, and even mortality rate while worsening early technical survival, which may not be associated with infectious complications. Rigorous studies are required to be performed.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis as a Bridge to Definitive Chronic Renal Replacement Therapy: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

Background: The peritoneal dialysis (PD) urgent-start pathway, without typical 2-week break-in period, was meant for late-referral patients able and prone to join PD-first program, with its main advantages such as: keeping the vascular system intact, preserving their residual renal function and retaining life-style flexibility. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive 35 patients after urgent- and 94 patients after the planned start of PD as the first choice.

Methods: The study included all incident end-stage renal disease patients starting PD program between January 2005 and December 2015, classified into two groups: those with urgent (unplanned) and those with elective (planned) start. Urgent PD was initiated as an overnight automatic procedure (APD) with dwell volume gradually increased, and after 2–3 weeks, target PD method was established.

Results: The mean time between catheter implantation and PD start was 3.5 ± 2.3 in urgent and 16.2 ± 1.7 days in planned-start groups (p < 0.00001). 51% of the patients in the urgent-start group required PD during first 48 h after catheter insertion. Mean follow-up of 17.6 ± 11.09 months (median: 19.0) was in the urgent-start group and 28.6 ± 26.6 months (median: 19.5) in the planned-start group. The early mechanical complications were observed more often in the urgent-start group (29 vs. 4%, p = 0.00005). The only significant predictors of early mechanical complications were serum albumin (p = 0.02) and time between the catheter insertion and PD start. The first year patient survival and technique survival censored for death and kidney transplantation were not significantly different between groups. In Cox proportional analysis the independent risk factors for patient survival as well as for method and patient survival appeared Charlson Comorbidity Index CCI (HR 1.4; p = 0.01 and 1.24; p = 0.02) and time from catheter implantation to PD start with HR 5.11; p = 0.03 and 4.29; p = 0.04 for <2 days, while time >14 days lost its predictive value (p = 0.07).

Conclusion: Peritoneal dialysis may be a feasible and safe alternative to HD in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access, with an acceptable complications rates, as well as patient and technique survival.

High mobility group box 1 in diabetic nephropathy

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a complex disorder caused by the combined effects of genetic inheritance and environmental factors. The abnormal secretion of albumin via urine is the characteristic feature of a diabetic nephropathy (DN) patient. Moreover, the detection of this observable characteristic feature of DN is quite late. As a result the time, at which DN is observable, large extent of kidney damage has already occurred. Thus, this late observation significantly decreases the chances of efficient management of DN and associated outcomes. The current biomarker used to detect DN is microalbuminuria, the presence of albumin in the urine. However, the current biomarkers often lead to false negative results. The high mobility group box (HMGB)1 is an upcoming molecule being explored for its application in the management of DN. The present review enlightens the current status of HMGB1 in DN.

Feasibility of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in Older Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) frequently require urgent-start dialysis. Recent evidence suggests that peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in these patients, including in older patients.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled patients aged > 65 years with ESRD who underwent urgent dialysis without functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center, from January 2011 to December 2014. Patients were grouped based on their dialysis modality (PD or HD). Patients unable to tolerate PD catheter insertion or wait for PD were excluded. Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion. Short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

A total of 94 patients were enrolled, including 53 (56.4%) who underwent PD. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly lower in PD compared with HD patients (3 [5.7%] vs 10 [24.4%], p = 0.009). Logistic regression identified urgent-start HD as an independent risk factor for dialysis-related complications compared with urgent-start PD (odds ratio 4.760 [1.183 – 19.147], p = 0.028). The 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival rates in the PD and HD groups were 92.3% vs 94.6%, 82.4% vs 81.3%, 75.7% vs 74.2%, and 69.5% vs 60.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (log-rank = 0.011, p = 0.915).

Conclusion

Urgent-start PD was associated with fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and similar survival to urgent-start HD in older patients with ESRD. Peritoneal dialysis may thus be a safe and effective dialysis modality for older ESRD patients requiring urgent dialysis.

Changes in the worldwide epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis

As the global burden of chronic kidney disease continues to increase, so does the need for a cost-effective renal replacement therapy. In many countries, patient outcomes with peritoneal dialysis are comparable to or better than those with haemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis is also more cost-effective. These benefits have not, however, always led to increased utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Use of this therapy is increasing in some countries, including China, the USA and Thailand, but has proportionally decreased in parts of Europe and in Japan. The variable trends in peritoneal dialysis use reflect the multiple challenges in prescribing this therapy to patients. Key strategies for facilitating peritoneal dialysis utilization include implementation of policies and incentives that favour this modality, enabling the appropriate production and supply of peritoneal dialysis fluid at a low cost, and appropriate training for nephrologists to enable increased utilization of the therapy and to ensure that rates of technique failure continue to decline. Further growth in peritoneal dialysis use is required to enable this modality to become an integral part of renal replacement therapy programmes worldwide.