Application of automated peritoneal dialysis in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis patients during the break-in period

Research hotspots and development trends in volume management of peritoneal dialysis patients: a bibliometrics and visual analysis up to 2022

OBJECTIVES

Among different renal replacement therapies (RRTs), peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a family based treatment method with multiple advantages, which allowing patients to maintain autonomy, avoiding frequent hospital visits, and preventing the spread of the disease virus. To visually analyze the literatures related to volume management of PD patients through bibliometric methods, to explore research hotspots and development trends in this field.

METHODS

The relevant literatures of PD patient volume management in the Web of Science core collection database were retrieved with the terms of peritoneal dialysis, volume management, capacity management, fluid status, and volume overload. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. CiteSpace 6.1.R3 software was used to visually analyze Country, Institution, Author, Keyword, and draw keyword clusters and keyword emergence maps.

RESULTS

A total of 788 articles were included in the analysis, and the annual number of papers was on the rise, with the American, China, and Brirain in the top three, and Peking University and University College London in the top. Keywords cluster analysis showed 11 clusters. In the keyword emergence analysis, the keywords with higher emergence intensity rank are continuous cyclic peritoneal dialysis, ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, and icodextrin. The current research hotspots and trends are in the evaluation of peritoneal dialysis patients' volume status, the selection and adjustment of dialysis prescriptions, and adverse health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The research on peritoneal dialysis volume management in China started late, but it has developed rapidly, and has a firm grasp of current research hotspots. However, there is less cooperation with other countries, so international exchanges and cooperation should be strengthened. At present, the volume assessment methods and dialysis modes are still the research hotspots, paying more attention to the adverse health outcomes of patients.

The influence of different peritoneal dialysis techniques on wound infection in patients with peritoneal dialysis tube

More and more research has started to investigate the effect of peritoneal dialysis treatment on the incidence of pericatheter wound complications in chronic kidney disease (CKD). This meta-study evaluated the effect of emergency peritoneal dialysis (EPD) with conventional peritoneal dialysis (CPD) in patients with catheter-related complications. We looked up 4 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, and analysed the data with RevMan 5. There were a total of 15 studies with 3034 participants. While the quality of the research included was fairly good, the evidence was mediocre. In the meta-analyses, the risk of leak in the conduit with PD was very high (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.72, 3.59, p < 0.00001). However, for those treated with urgent medical method prior to initiation of PD, the risk for peritonitis, catheter dysfunction and bleeding was similar compared with CPD. Based on limited information, immediate initiation of PDs is advised in order to increase the quality of life for people in urgent need, except if there is no consideration for loss of fluid. The low quality of the evidence is holding up the evidence. This research, however, is also informative because of the large number of available data. Consequently, additional high quality, large, randomized controlled studies are required to establish.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis is an important form of kidney replacement therapy. Most patients presenting with an unplanned, urgent need for dialysis are prescribed haemodialysis, leading to peritoneal dialysis underutilisation. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis refers to treatment that is commenced within 2 weeks of catheter placement. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis represents an efficacious, cost-effective alternative to the conventional approach of commencing dialysis. There is a paucity of evidence to guide management, however experience with the technique is increasing. This article overviews the rationale and practical application of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.

Albumin to Total Cholesterol Ratio and Mortality in Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

Serum albumin and total cholesterol are associated with mortality. In clinical practice, evaluating the association of combining album and total cholesterol with mortality may be more reasonable. Thus, we examined the association between serum albumin to total cholesterol ratio and mortality in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3447 incident continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients from five PD centers in China from 1 January 2005 and 31 May 2020. The association between albumin to total cholesterol ratio and mortality was evaluated.

Results

With a median follow-up of 39.3 months, 762 (22.1%) all-cause deaths occurred, including 382 (11.1%) cardiovascular deaths. As compared with a serum albumin to total cholesterol ratio of 0.77–0.82 (reference range), a higher ratio (>0.82) was associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality[hazards ratio (HR), 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16–2.05, E-value = 2.45] and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.35–3.29, E-value = 3.62). A lower ratio (<0.77) was also associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10–1.94, E-value = 2.28) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14–2.78, E-value = 2.96) compared with the reference. No interaction was observed in subgroup analyses of age, sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, prior cardiovascular disease, and hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition (serum albumin <3.6 g/dL).

Conclusion

An albumin to total cholesterol ratio before the start of PD between 0.77 and 0.82 was associated with a lower risk of death than a higher or lower ratio, resulting in a U-curve association. Therefore, serum albumin to total cholesterol ratio, as an inexpensive and readily available biochemical biomarker, may further improve the stratification risk of mortality in PD patients.

Automated peritoneal dialysis as a cost-effective urgent-start dialysis option for ESRD patients: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported the feasibility of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) as an alternative to hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, the cost-effectiveness of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) as an urgent-start dialysis modality has not been directly evaluated, especially in China.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who required urgent-start dialysis at a single center from March 2019 to November 2020. Patients were grouped according to their urgent-start dialysis modality (APD and HD). Urgent-start dialysis conducted until 14 days after PD catheter insertion. Then, PD was maintained. Each patient was followed until July 2021 or death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was the incidence of short-term dialysis-related complications. The secondary outcome was the cost and duration of the initial hospitalization. Technique survival, peritonitis-free or bacteriamia-free survival and patient survival were also compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included in the study, of whom 36 (52.9%) patients were in APD group. Mean follow-up duration was 20.1 months. Compared with the HD group, the APD group had significantly fewer short-term dialysis-related complications. The cost of initial hospitalization was also significantly lower in APD patients. There was no significant difference between APD and HD patients with respect to duration of the initial hospitalization, technique survival rate, peritonitis-free or bacteriemia-free survival rate, and patient survival rate.

CONCLUSION

Among ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis, APD as urgent-start dialysis modality, compared with HD using a CVC, resulted in fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and lower cost.

Feasibility of a break-in period of less than 24 hours for urgent start peritoneal dialysis: a multicenter study

Purpose

Urgent start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) is an effective therapeutic method for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, whether it is safe to initiate peritoneal dialysis (PD) within 24 h unclear. We examined the short-term outcomes of a break-in period (BI) of 24 h for patients undergoing USPD.

Methods

This real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort study evaluated USPD patients from five centers from January 2013 to August 2020. Patients were divided into BI ≤ 24 h or BI > 24 h groups. The Primary outcomes included incidence of mechanical and infectious complications. The secondary outcome was technique failure. Moreover, we presented a subgroup analysis for patients who did not receive temporary hemodialysis (HD).

Results

A total of 871 USPD patients were included: 470 in the BI ≤ 24 h and 401 in the BI > 24 h groups. Mechanical and infectious complications did not differ between the two groups across the follow-up timepoints (2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months) (p > 0.05). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that BI ≤ 24 h was not an independent risk factor for mechanical complications, catheter migration, or infectious complications (p > 0.05). A BI ≤ 24 h was not an independent significant risk factor for technique failure by multivariate Cox regression analysis (p > 0.05). The subgroup analysis of patients who did not receive temporary HD returned the same results.

Conclusion

Initiating PD within 24 h of catheter insertion was not associated with increased mechanical complications, infectious complications, or technique failures.

Break-in Period ≤24 Hours as an Option for Urgent-start Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal break-in period (BI) of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) initiation for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and diabetes is unclear. We aimed to explore the safety and applicability of a BI ≤24 h in patients with ESRD and diabetes.

METHODS

We used a retrospective cohort design wherein we recruited patients with ESRD and diabetes who underwent USPD at five institutions in China between January 2013 and August 2020. The enrolled patients were grouped according to BI. The primary outcomes were mechanical and infectious complication occurrences, whereas the secondary outcome was technique survival.

RESULTS

We enrolled 310 patients with diabetes, of whom 155 and 155 patients were in the BI ≤24 h and BI >24 h groups, respectively. The two groups showed a comparable incidence of infectious and mechanical complications within 6 months after catheter insertion (p>0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for mechanical or infectious complications. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed no statistically significant between-group differences in technique survival rates (p>0.05). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for technique failure.

CONCLUSION

USPD initiation with a BI ≤24 h may be safe and feasible for patients with ESRD and diabetes.

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.

Use of Peritoneal Dialysis in Acute Kidney Injury: How Far Away?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) has become a worldwide public health problem, resulting in a high risk of mortality and progression to chronic kidney disease. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be an effective renal support for AKI, especially in regions where medical resources are limited, but actually underused. In this article, the current barriers and challenges of use of PD in AKI are discussed, including health strategy and medical resources, PD team organization, and technique-specific factors. Currently, we are just on the starting line of the campaign of acute PD. It is still a long way to the development of PD as a mature treatment in AKI.

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.

Early-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a Chinese cohort study on outcome

Background

Early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective option for patients need unplanned dialysis. However, there are few studies on the long-term prognosis of early-start PD patients.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 635 eligible patients from 1 March 1996 to 30 September 2016 were included, and divided into three groups according to the duration of break-in period: 3 days or less, 4–13 days and more than 14 days. Patients started PD within 2 weeks and after 2 weeks were defined as early-start and conventional-start, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome measures were peritonitis free survival and technical survival. Mechanical and infectious complications in the first 180 days were also analyzed.

Results

Early-start PD patients were more likely to have higher serum total carbon dioxide and creatinine levels and lower serum albumin, Kt/v, creatinine clearance (Ccr) and residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) levels at the start of PD. The median follow-up period was 30 months (interquartile range, 13-53 months). A worse survival was observed in the early-start group than that in the conventional-start group (p < 0.001), even adjustment for the covariates (HR 1.549, 95%CI 1.104–2.173, p = 0.011). In the subgroup analysis, in patients commencing PD after 2006 early-start and conventional-start PD patients had comparable survival. No differences were observed in the rate of infectious and mechanical complications, peritonitis-free survival and technique survival between early-start and conventional-start PD patients.

Conclusions

Early-start PD could be a safe and effective strategy for patients needing unplanned dialysis initiation with the progress of technology on PD.

APD or CAPD: one glove does not fit all

The use of Automated Peritoneal Dialysis (APD) in its various forms has increased over the past few years mainly in developed countries. This could be attributed to improved cycler design, apparent lifestyle benefits and the ability to achieve adequacy and ultrafiltration targets. However, the dilemma of choosing the superior modality between APD and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) has not yet been resolved. When it comes to fast transporters and assisted PD, APD is certainly considered the most suitable Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) modality. Improved patients’ compliance, lower intraperitoneal pressure and possibly lower incidence of peritonitis have been also associated with APD. However, concerns regarding increased cost, a more rapid decline in residual renal function, inadequate sodium removal and disturbed sleep are APD’s setbacks. Besides APD superiority over CAPD in fast transporters, the other medical advantages of APD still remain controversial. In any case, APD should be readily available for all patients starting PD and the most important indication for its implementation remains patient’s choice.

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter–related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: is it ready for prime time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an up-to-date summary of the definition, current practice and evidence regarding the role of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease who present with unplanned dialysis requirement without functional access.

RECENT FINDINGS

USPD can be broadly defined as peritoneal dialysis initiation within the first 2 weeks after catheter insertion. Published practice patterns, in terms of catheter insertion approach, peritoneal dialysis initiation time or initial fill volume, are highly variable. Most evidence comes from small, retrospective, single-center observational studies and only one randomized controlled trial. Compared with conventional-start peritoneal dialysis, USPD appears to moderately increase the risk of mechanical complications, such as dialysate leak (relative risk 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.73-5.95), but does not appear to adversely affect technique or patient survival. USPD may also reduce the risk of bacteremia compared with urgent-start hemodialysis delivered by central venous catheter (CVC).

SUMMARY

USPD represents an important opportunity to establish patients with urgent, unplanned dialysis requirements on a cost-effective, home-based dialysis modality with lower serious infection risks than the alternative option of hemodialysis via CVC. Robust, well executed trials are required to better inform optimal practice and safeguard patient-centered and patient-reported outcomes.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis compared with planned peritoneal dialysis and with urgent-start hemodialysis

An increasing number of studies have focused on whether peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be used for the urgent initiation of dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and safety of urgent-start PD compared with those of planned PD and urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in this population. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies. Conference abstracts were also searched in relevant websites. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 15 trials involving 2426 participants were identified. The quality of the included studies was fair, but the quality of evidence was very low. Unadjusted meta-analysis showed that urgent-start PD had significantly higher mortality than planned PD, while adjusted meta-analysis did not show a significant difference. Higher incident of leakage and catheter mechanical dysfunction were observed in urgent-start PD. However, peritonitis, exit-site infection, or PD technique survival were comparable between urgent-start and planned PD. The all-cause mortality was comparable in urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD. Bacteremia was significantly lower in the urgent-start PD group than with urgent-start HD. Based on limited evidences, PD may be a viable alternative to HD for CKD patients requiring urgent-start dialysis. Because of the inconsistent results and the low quality of evidence, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn for whether urgent-start PD was comparable with planned PD. Therefore, high-quality and large-scale studies are needed in the future.

Efficacy of APD in perioperative period of non-abdominal operation for peritoneal dialysis patients

Objectives: Whether automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is a feasible strategy in perioperative period of uremic patients undergoing nonabdominal surgery remains unclear. This study was conducted to research the perioperative management and the best choice of dialysis modalities for peritoneal dialysis patients.

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 58 ESRD patients who had received peritoneal dialysis for more than three months were treated with APD during perioperative period from July 2015 to March 2018 in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. The differences of clinical parameters, such as urine volume, ultrafiltration volume, hemoglobin, renal function and electrolytes were collected and analyzed before and after APD.

Results: The vital signs of 58 patients were stable after APD treatment, and there were no significant differences in 24-hour urine volume, hemoglobin and electrolytes (calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium) before and after surgery (P>0.05). Compared with those before treatment, the amount of ultrafiltration increased significantly (P<0.05), creatinine, urea nitrogen and parathyroid hormone decreased significantly (P<0.05), while albumin decreased (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Application of APD for peritoneal dialysis patients undergoing nonabdominal surgery during the perioperative period is safe and effective.