Incremental peritoneal dialysis is a safe and feasible prescription in incident patients with preserved residual kidney function

Relationship between number of daily exchanges at CAPD start with clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) continues to be demanding for patients affected by kidney failure. In kidney failure patients with residual kidney function, the employment of incremental PD, a less onerous dialytic prescription, could translate into a decrease burden on both health systems and patients.

METHODS

Between 1st January 2009 and 31st December 2021, 182 patients who started continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) at our institution were included in the study. The CAPD population was divided into three groups according to the initial number of daily CAPD exchanges prescribed: one or two (50 patients, CAPD-1/2 group), three (97 patients, CAPD-3 group) and four (35 patients, CAPD-4 group), respectively.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed a difference in term of peritonitis free survival in CAPD-1/2 in comparison to CAPD-3 (hazard ratio (HR): 2.20, p = 0.014) and CAPD-4 (HR: 2.98, p < 0.01). A tendency towards a lower hospitalisation rate (CAPD-3 and CAPD-4 vs. CAPD-1/2, p = 0.11 and 0.13, respectively) and decreased mortality (CAPD-3 and CAPD-4 vs. CAPD-1/2, p = 0.13 and 0.22, respectively) in patients who started PD with less than three daily exchanges was detected. No discrepancy of the difference of the mean values between baseline and 24 months residual kidney function was observed among the three groups (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

One- or two-exchange CAPD start was associated with a lower risk of peritonitis in comparison to three- or four-exchange start. Furthermore, an initial PD prescription with less than three exchanges may be associated with an advantage in term of hospitalisation rate and patient survival.

Incremental peritoneal dialysis and survival outcomes: a propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The advantages of an incremental dialysis start are not fully clear. We aimed to evaluate the association of incremental initiation of peritoneal dialysis with mortality.

METHODS

Incident peritoneal dialysis patients with a catheter placed at our hospital between 2008 and 2017 were included. All patients were followed up until December 31, 2019. Patients were categorized into different groups according to the initial daily dialysis exchanges, and were matched at a ratio of 1:2 with propensity score matching. Multiple variables including age, sex, residual kidney function, urine volume, hemoglobin, serum albumin and other important variables were included for the matching. Primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1315 patients with a mean age of 45.9 years were enrolled. The mean glomerular filtration rate was 4.32 ml/min/1.73 m2 at start of dialysis. Two hundred eighty-five patients in the incremental group and 502 in the full dose group were matched for age, sex, residual kidney function, urine volume, hemoglobin, serum albumin and other important variables. Patient survival and cardiovascular event-free survival were similar between the two groups. However, during the first 6 years of peritoneal dialysis, patients in the incremental group had better survival (P = 0.011) and cardiovascular event-free survival (P = 0.044) than the full dose group, while such advantages disappeared when dialysis vintage became longer. Further analysis showed that the incremental group (vs full dose dialysis) had a 39% lower risk (95% CI 0.42-0.90, P = 0.012) of all-cause mortality and a 41% decreased risk (95% CI 0.35-0.99, P = 0.047) of cardiovascular mortality during the first 6 years of dialysis. Additionally, the cumulative hazard for anuria was significantly lower in the incremental group versus the full dose group (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows a time-related survival advantage for incremental peritoneal dialysis patients, suggesting that an incremental regimen for starting peritoneal dialysis is feasible and is not associated with worse outcomes. Graphical Abstract presenting schematically the measurements of the solvation response function by processing the relevant streak camera images and the time-correlated photon counting (TCSPC) data and appropriately combining them together.

Incremental Peritoneal Dialysis-Definition, Prescription, and Clinical Outcomes

ABSTRACT

Incremental peritoneal dialysis (IPD) is a strategy of RRT that is based on the prescription of a lower dose rather than the standard full dose of peritoneal dialysis (PD). The clearance goals are achieved through the combination of residual kidney function (RKF) and peritoneal clearance. The dialysis prescription should be increased as the RKF declines. IPD has been associated with clinical, economic, and environmental advantages. We emphasize possible better quality of life, fewer mechanical symptoms, lower costs, slight adverse metabolic effects, and less plastic waste and water consumption. The potential benefits for RKF preservation and the lower risk of peritonitis have also been discussed. There are some concerns regarding this strategy, such as inadequate clearance of uremic toxins and/or severe electrolyte disturbances due to undetected loss of RKF, lower clearance of medium-sized molecules (such as β-2-microglobulin) which mostly depends on the total PD dwell time, and patients' reluctance to dose adjustments. Current clinical evidence is based on moderate-quality to low-quality studies and suggests that the outcomes of IPD will be at least identical to those of full dose. This review aims to define IDP, discuss strategies for prescription, and review its advantages and disadvantages according to the current evidence.

Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.