Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hybrid Method for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: A New Technique for Improved Outcomes and Reduced Costs

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a well-established treatment choice for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). While there are several methods for PD catheter insertion, they each have limitations. In this study, we present a new hybrid method for PD catheter insertion and compare it to the conventional laparoscopic method.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 171 patients who were undergoing their first PD catheter insertion, and a total of 20% of the enrolled patients had a past medical history of abdominal surgery. Out of these, 101 patients underwent the laparoscopic method and 70 underwent a new invented hybrid method. The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, incidence of early and late complications, hospital stay, and medical expenses between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no notable differences in basic demographic features and comorbid conditions between the two groups. The results of our data revealed that the hybrid group had a significantly shorter break-in period and did not require temporary hemodialysis. Additionally, length of hospital stay and medical costs were significantly lower in the hybrid group (all p < 0.05). The incidence of early complications was lower in the hybrid group, while the incidence of late complications was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that the hybrid method of PD catheter insertion provides a safe and efficient alternative to the traditional laparoscopic method, enabling urgent-start PD and reducing hospital stays and medical expenses. Our findings support the use of the hybrid method as a new standard of care for ESKD patients undergoing PD catheter insertion.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC 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 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I² = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I² = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.

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.

Comparison of outcomes of urgent-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

There has been a growing interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease to avoid central venous catheter use and its complications. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between urgent-start PD (defined as PD commencement within 2 weeks of PD catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2017 and February 2018. The primary outcome was dialysate leak. Secondary outcomes included catheter malfunction, catheter readjustment, exit-site infection, peritonitis, technique and patient survival.

RESULTS

A total of 187 incident PD patients were included. Of these, 66 (35%) initiated urgent-start PD. Dialysate leak was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD groups (7.6% versus 0.8%; p = 0.02) whilst catheter malfunction (4.5% vs. 3.3%; p  = 0.70) and catheter readjustment (1.5% vs. 2.5%; p  = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups. Exit-site infection was comparable (IRR: 0.66 95% CI 0.25-1.74) whilst peritonitis was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-7.44). Time to first episode of peritonitis, particularly Gram-positive peritonitis was significantly shorter with urgent-start PD. Technique survival (hazards ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% CI 0.89-4.31) and patient survival (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.44-4.87) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Urgent-start PD was associated with higher risks of dialysate leak and peritonitis but comparable technique and patient survival compared to conventional-start PD.

Urgent vs. early-start peritoneal dialysis: patients' profile and outcomes

Introduction:

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been considered a safe option of therapy in end-stage renal disease patients with urgent need of dialysis. Recently, it was proposed that Urgent-Start-PD (US-PD) be defined when PD starts within 72 hours after catheter placement and “early start” PD (ES-PD) when PD starts between 3 and 14 days after. We aimed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics between patients in US-PD and ES-PD as well as 30-day complications, 6-month hospitalization, and dropout rate.

Methods:

Adult patients starting PD within 14 days after catheter insertion (October/2016 - February/2019) were included and divided into US-PD group and ES-PD group based on the their PD initiation time. Clinical and demographic data, fill volume for the first PD session, 30-day complications, 6-month hospitalization, and dropout rate were assessed.

Results:

In our study, 72 patients were analyzed (US-PD=40, ES-PD=32) with mean age of 53.2±15.2 years old. No differences between US-PD and ES-PD regarding demographic characteristics, 30-day complications, 6-month hospitalization, and dropout events were found. The most frequent short-term complication in patients who started PD urgently was leakage. The most common cause of dropout was transfer to HD.

Conclusion:

Fifty five percent of our sample started PD less than 72 hours after catheter insertion. The lack of difference in the measured outcomes compared to patients that had therapy initiated after this period encourages the use of urgent PD when needed.

Complications and outcomes of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease in China: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the complications and survival of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who received urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) or urgent-start haemodialysis (USHD), and to explore the value of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the emergent dialysis method for elderly patients with ESRD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two tertiary care hospitals in Shanghai, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Chinese patients (n=542) >65 years of age with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤15 mL/min/m2 who received urgent-start dialysis between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2015, and with at least 3 months of treatment. Patients who converted to other dialysis methods, regardless of the initial dialysis method, were excluded, as well as those with comorbidities that could significantly affect their dialysis outcomes.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Dialysis-related complications and survival were compared. Patients were followed until death, stopped PD, transfer to other dialysis centres, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2016.

RESULTS

There were 309 patients in the USPD group and 233 in the USHD group. The rate of dialysis-related complications within 30 days after catheter implantation was significantly lower in the USPD group compared with the USHD group (4.5% vs 10.7%, p=0.031). The 6-month and 1, 2 and 3-year survival rates were 95.3%, 91.4%, 86.6% and 64.8% in the USPD group, and 92.2%, 85.7%, 70.2% and 57.8% in the USHD group, respectively (p=0.023). The multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that USHD (HR=2.220, 95% CI 1.298 to 3.790; p=0.004), age (HR=1.025, 95% CI 1.013 to 1.043, p<0.001) and hypokalaemia (HR=0.678, 95% CI 0.487 to 0.970; p=0.032) were independently associated with death.

CONCLUSIONS

USPD was associated with slightly better survival compared with USHD. USPD was associated with fewer complications and better survival than USHD in elderly patients with ESRD.