Incremental peritoneal dialysis favourably compares with hemodialysis as a bridge to renal transplantation

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.

Comparison of clinical outcome between incremental peritoneal dialysis and conventional peritoneal dialysis: a propensity score matching study

Background

Incremental peritoneal dialysis (iPD) can be useful in patients with residual renal function (RRF). RRF was well preserved and similar survival was shown in iPD compared to conventional PD (cPD) in previous study. However, the long-term survival of iPD remains unclear compared to cPD in diabetic patients. This study evaluated whether patient survival, hospitalization and peritonitis, and PD survival in iPD were lower than cPD or not.

Methods

We conducted a 12-year retrospective observational study of 303 PD patients (232 cPD and 71 iPD) using propensity score matching by age, gender, and diabetes mellitus (DM). Finally, 78 cPD patients and 39 iPD patients were included and 44 patients had DM. Incremental PD was defined as starting PD with two or three manual exchanges per day.

Results

The median duration of iPD was 24.1 months and iPD had higher RRF than cPD. Compared to cPD, the patient survival, PD survival and hospitalization benefits were not found in iPD but diabetic iPD patients had significantly longer survival and less hospitalization. Cumulative risk for peritonitis was lower iPD and PD duration of iPD was longer than those of cPD. The iPD was an independent factor associated with survival in patients with DM.

Conclusions

Incremental PD may be a safe PD modality to initiate and maintain PD in less uremic patients with tolerable RRF. Incremental PD would be a benefit for survival in diabetic patients. Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of iPD in PD patients with similar RRF.

Peritoneal dialysis: the ideal bridge from conservative therapy to kidney transplant

Background

Kidney transplantation offers the best potential for full rehabilitation in patients with end-stage kidney disease who are treated with dialysis. However, due to organ shortage which is a universal phenomenon, most patients need to be maintained on a period of dialysis therapy before the prospect of transplantation. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) could be an ideal form of renal replacement therapy due to its favorable profile toward preservation of residual renal function, patient survival, lower overall burden on cardiovascular morbidity and infection risks.

Methods

With extensive experience in PD therapy from Hong Kong where PD-first is a mandatory health policy, we reviewed the literature and present current evidence that favors PD as an optimal form of bridging renal replacement therapy prior to kidney transplantation.

Results

PD provides a viable and advantageous form of renal reaplcement particularly in terms of preservation of residual renal function, patient survival and quality of life, and cost among many other factors. Potential misconceptions that PD-related peritonitis and dialysis inadequacy are potentially deterrent factors for initiating PD therapy are clarified.

Conclusion

PD is a practical and noninferior form of renal replacement that serves as an ideal bridge from conservative therapy to kidney transplantation.

Flexibility in peritoneal dialysis prescription: Impact on technique survival

Background:

Patient burnout is a major cause of technique failure on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Reducing the PD prescription on an individual basis, dependent upon residual kidney function (RKF), may have a role in prolonging time on PD by reducing dialysis burden. This retrospective study aimed to determine the safety and impact of flexible PD prescribing on technique and patient survival.

Methods:

All patients (186) from our centre starting PD from 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2016 were included. Data on dialysis prescription were collected for each patient from the time they had started PD, and dialysis adequacy measured regularly (3–6 monthly) using PD Adequest.

Results:

Median age at start of dialysis was 61 years. Only 49% started on PD 7 days a week and this dropped to 27% at 3 months following the first clearance test. Over 90% achieved creatinine clearance > 50 L/week/1.73 m2 up to 2 years of follow-up, with 87% achieving this standard at 3 years. Patient and technique survival at 1, 2 and 3 years were 91%, 81%, and 72%, and 89%, 87% and 78% respectively. Factors on univariate analysis affecting technique survival included increasing age (HR 0.98, p = 0.04, 95% CI (0.96–0.999)), two or more episodes of PD-associated peritonitis (HR 4.52, p = 0.00, 95% CI (1.87–10.91)) and increasing PD intensity (HR 3.30, p = 0.02, 95% CI (1.22–8.93)). After multivariate adjustment which included baseline kidney function, low PD intensity continued to be associated with better technique survival (HR 0.17, p = 0.03, 95% CI (0.03–0.85)).

Conclusion:

Tailoring the PD prescription to RKF enables days off dialysis while still maintaining recommended levels of small solute clearance. This approach reduces dialysis burden and is associated with higher technique survival.

Effects of pretransplant peritoneal vs hemodialysis modality on outcome of first kidney transplantation from donors after cardiac death

Background

The effect of pretransplant peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) modality on outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is debatable. We evaluated the outcomes these modalities in KT from donor after cardiac death (DCD).

Methods

A cohort of 251 patients on HD, PD or pre-emptive who underwent first KT from DCD between January 2014 and December 2016 were prospectively analyzed to compare for outcomes on recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival. The patients were followed till August 2017. Data on 104 HD and 98 PD were available for final comparative outcome analysis, 5 pre-emptive were analyzed as the control group.

Results

Both HD and PD group patients were well matched for demographic and baseline characteristics. The follow-up period was 12.5 (3.0, 22.0) months in HD and 12.0 (6.0, 20.0) months in PD patients. Post-transplant renal functions between the two groups showed no differences. Among PD patients, 16 (16.3%) suffered delayed graft function, versus 19 (18.3%) in HD, with no statistical differences (p = 0.715). Complications of acute rejection, infections were comparable between the groups. The patient survival, graft survival and death-censored graft survival were similar for HD and PD after adjusting for other multiple risk factors.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that outcome of first KT from DCD is not affected by pretransplant dialysis modality of PD or HD in aspects of recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival.

Worldwide Experiences with Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is common in the elderly population, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) is often required. However, in this particular subgroup of patients, the choice between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) is often not an easy decision to make. Published literature has adequately demonstrated that PD prevalence is significantly less than HD across all patient age groups despite several advantages. We also know that elderly patients are less likely to complete a PD assessment, due to both medical and social barriers. Additionally, elderly patients are often reluctant to go ahead with PD despite being eligible PD candidates, mainly due to the fear of performing self-therapy. Recently, many new assisted PD (asPD) programs have cropped up in several countries. The main aim of these programs is to overcome barriers to PD and to promote PD utilization among elderly and non-self-sufficient patients. Although asPD has proven to be associated with good clinical results, there still remain concerns about its greater use. In this review, we will first describe an ideal asPD model and then enumerate examples of strategies and outcomes associated with successful asPD programs worldwide.

Changing Landscape for Peritoneal Dialysis: Optimizing Utilization

The future growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) will be directly linked to the shift in US healthcare to a value-based payment model due to PD's lower yearly cost, early survival advantage over in-center hemodialysis, and improved quality of life for patients treating their kidney disease in the home. Under this model, nephrology practices will need an increased focus on managing the transition from chronic kidney disease to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), providing patient education with the aim of accomplishing modality selection and access placement ahead of dialysis initiation. Physicians must expand their knowledge base in home therapies and work toward increased technique survival through implementation of specific practice initiatives that highlight PD catheter placement success, preservation of residual renal function, consideration of incremental PD, and competence in urgent start PD. Avoidance of both early and late PD technique failures is also critical to PD program growth. Large dialysis organizations must continue to measure and improve quality metrics for PD, expand their focus beyond the sole provision of PD to holistic patient care, and initiate programs to reduce PD hospitalization rates and encourage physicians to consider the benefits of PD as an initial modality for appropriate patients. New and innovative strategies are needed to address the main reasons for PD technique failure, improve the connectivity of the patient in the home, leverage home biometric data to improve overall outcomes, and develop PD cycler devices that lower patient treatment burden and reduce both treatment fatigue and treatment-dependent complications.

The Use of Incremental Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Contemporary Peritoneal Dialysis Program

BACKGROUND

The use of an incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD) strategy in a large contemporary patient population has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

We report the use of this strategy in clinical practice, the prescriptions required, and the clearances achieved in a large center which has routinely used this approach for more than 10 years.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

A single large Canadian academic center.

PATIENTS

This study collected data on 124 prevalent PD patients at a single Canadian academic center.

METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS

The proportion of patients who achieve the clearance target on a low clearance or incremental PD prescription; the actual PD prescriptions and consequent total, peritoneal, and renal urea clearances [Kt/V] achieved; and patient and technique survival and peritonitis rate in comparison with national and international reports.

RESULTS

Of the 124 prevalent PD patients in this PD unit, 106 (86%) were achieving the Kt/V target, and of these, 54 (44% of all patients) were doing so using incremental PD prescriptions. Fifty of these incremental PD patients were using automated PD (APD) with either no day dwell (68%) or less than 7 days a week treatment (12%) or both (20%). Patient survival in our PD unit was not different from that reported in Canada as a whole. Peritonitis rates were better than internationally recommended standards.

LIMITATIONS

This is an observational study with no randomized control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Incremental PD is feasible in a contemporary PD population treated mainly with APD. Almost half of the patients were able to achieve clearance targets while receiving less onerous and less costly low clearance prescriptions. We suggest that incremental PD should be widely used as a cost-effective strategy in PD.

Incremental peritoneal dialysis: a 10 year single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Incremental dialysis consists in prescribing a dialysis dose aimed towards maintaining total solute clearance (renal + dialysis) near the targets set by guidelines. Incremental peritoneal dialysis (incrPD) is defined as one or two dwell-times per day on CAPD, whereas standard peritoneal dialysis (stPD) consists in three-four dwell-times per day.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-centre cohort study. Enrollement period: January 2002-December 2007; end of follow up (FU): December 2012.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

incident patients with FU ≥6 months, initial residual renal function (RRF) 3-10 ml/min/1.73 sqm BSA, renal indication for PD.

RESULTS

Median incrPD duration was 17 months (I-III Q: 10; 30). There were no statistically significant differences between 29 patients on incrPD and 76 on stPD regarding: clinical, demographic and anthropometric characteristics at the beginning of treatment, adequacy indices, peritonitis-free survival (peritonitis incidence: 1/135 months-patients in incrPD vs. 1/52 months-patients in stPD) and patient survival. During the first 6 months, RRF remained stable in incrPD (6.20 ± 2.02 vs. 6.08 ± 1.47 ml/min/1.73 sqm BSA; p = 0.792) whereas it decreased in stPD (4.48 ± 2.12 vs. 5.61 ± 1.49; p < 0.001). Patient survival was affected negatively by ischemic cardiopathy (HR: 4.269; p < 0.001), peripheral and cerebral vascular disease (H2.842; p = 0.006) and cirrhosis (2.982; p = 0.032) and positively by urine output (0.392; p = 0.034). Hospitalization rates were significantly lower in incrPD (p = 0.021). Eight of 29 incrPD patients were transplanted before reaching full dose treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

IncrPD is a safe modality to start PD; compared to stPD, it shows similar survival rates, significantly less hospitalization, a trend towards lower peritonitis incidence and slower reduction of renal function.

[Peritoneal dialysis--an ideal initial dialysis mode]

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has become an established dialysis modality besides hemodialysis (HD). Although PD is an equal form of dialysis compared to HD, patients numbers on PD remain low worldwide. There are several reasons for this fact. The medical staff in some centers is not used to PD, so there is not enough information about the different dialysis methods available for the patients and the staff doesn't get the training that would be necessary to get familiar with PD. There are some concerns about offering PD to certain groups of patients despite excellent results as to quality of dialysis, good preservation of residual renal function, low costs compared to HD and better quality of life than on HD. However, PD should be offered to all patients requiring dialysis with very few exeptions as an ideal initial dialysis method. This includes patients with diabetes, patients with kidney transplant failure, patients with congestive heart failure and older patients.