Cross-Over Efficiency Comparison of Different Tidal Automated Peritoneal Dialysis Schedules

Automated peritoneal dialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for people with kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based kidney replacement therapy (KRT) performed in people with kidney failure. PD can be performed by manual filling and draining of the abdominal cavity, i.e. continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), or using a device connected to the PD catheter that is programmed to perform PD exchanges, i.e. automated PD (APD). APD is considered to have several advantages over CAPD, such as a lower incidence of peritonitis, fewer mechanical complications, and greater psychosocial acceptability. Acknowledging the increasing uptake of APD in incident and prevalent patients undergoing PD, it is important to re-evaluate the evidence on the comparative clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD compared to CAPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD to CAPD in people with kidney failure.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies until 29 August 2024. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing APD with CAPD in adults (≥ 18 years) with kidney failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects meta-analyses, expressing effect estimates as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs (131 randomised people) comparing APD with CAPD were included in this update. One RCT had a follow-up of six months, and one RCT had a follow-up of 24 months. The risk of bias in the included studies was mostly low, except for the high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of APD compared to CAPD on death, hospitalisations, PD-related peritonitis, change of dialysis modality, residual kidney function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), overhydration, blood pressure, exit-site infections, tunnel infections, mechanical complications, PD catheter removal, or dialysis adequacy measures. These results were largely based on low to very low certainty evidence; hence, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists to decide between APD and CAPD in kidney failure patients with regard to clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, current evidence is insufficient as a guide for clinical practice. Given that the sample sizes of existing studies are generally small with insufficient follow-up, there is a need for large-scale, multicentre studies. Future research should focus on possible differences between APD and CAPD in residual kidney function, euvolaemia, and patient-reported outcomes such as HRQoL, symptoms, patient satisfaction and life participation.

Tidal Versus Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis in Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: Randomized, Open-Label, Prospective Control Study

BACKGROUND

Tidal peritoneal dialysis (TPD) provides better fluid flow mechanics and is more comfortable for the patient, owing to fewer alarms and less pain during inflow and outflow. The long-term characteristics of patients with TPD were not evident. In this randomized controlled follow-up study, we aimed to explore the characteristics of patients with TPD, compared to IPD.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients were randomized to either IPD or 70% TPD between January 2019 and December 2020, and all patients were followed up on December 2021. The characteristics of patients between the two groups were analyzed using a t-test or chi-square as appropriate. The overall survival and technical survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were assigned to IPD, and 43 patients were assigned to TPD. The basal characteristics of patients were not different between the two groups. In an average of 16 months of follow-up, 19 patients died, and 25 patients dropped out of peritoneal dialysis. The two groups had no difference in overall survival and technical survival. TPD was associated with high urine volume (p = 0.001), lower blood urea nitrogen (p = 0.002), lower phosphorus (p = 0.004), and fewer cycler alarms (p < 0.001). The chance of patients reporting abdominal fullness was higher in patients with TPD (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the randomized, controlled, follow-up study, TPD may preserve residual renal function and is associated with lower urea nitrogen and phosphorus in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. TPD is associated with fewer cycler alarms but may increase the chance of patients reporting abdominal distension.

Phosphate Control in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: Issues, Solutions, and Open Questions

Hyperphosphatemia is a common complication in advanced chronic kidney disease and contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The present narrative review focuses on the management of phosphatemia in uremic patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. These patients frequently develop hyperphosphatemia since phosphate anion behaves as a middle-size molecule despite its low molecular weight. Accordingly, patient transporter characteristics and peritoneal dialysis modalities and prescriptions remarkably influence serum phosphate control. Given that phosphate peritoneal removal is often insufficient, especially in lower transporters, patients are often prescribed phosphate binders whose use in peritoneal dialysis is primarily based on clinical trials conducted in hemodialysis because very few studies have been performed solely in peritoneal dialysis populations. A crucial role in phosphate control among peritoneal dialysis patients is played by diet, which must help in reducing phosphorous intake while preventing malnutrition. Moreover, residual renal function, which is preserved in most peritoneal dialysis patients, significantly contributes to maintaining phosphate balance. The inadequate serum phosphate control observed in many patients on peritoneal dialysis highlights the need for large and well-designed clinical trials including exclusively peritoneal dialysis patients to evaluate the effects of a multiple therapeutic approach on serum phosphate control and on hard clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.