Epidemiology of severe sepsis in India

Peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested as an effective and safe dialysis modality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, whether PD is superior to extracorporeal therapy (e.g. haemodialysis) in terms of improving survival, recovery of kidney function, metabolic and clinical outcomes is still inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of PD for patients with AKI compared with extracorporeal therapy or different PD modalities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 29 May 2017 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. We also searched the China Biological Medicine Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included patients with AKI who were randomised to receive PD, extracorporeal therapy, or different PD modalities regardless of their age, sex, primary disease and clinical course.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessments for each retrieved article were carried out by two authors using standardised forms. Authors contacted when published data were incomplete. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was explored using the Cochran Q statistic and the I² test. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, recovery of kidney function, weekly delivered Kt/V, correction of acidosis, fluid removal, duration of dialysis, and infectious complications. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (484 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five studies compared high volume PD with daily haemodialysis, extended daily haemodialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy. One study focused on the intensity of PD. The overall risk of bias was low to unclear. Compared to extracorporeal therapy, PD probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (4 studies, 383 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; I² = 69%; moderate certainty evidence), or kidney function recovery (3 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). PD probably slightly reduces the amount of fluid removal compared to extracorporeal therapy (3 studies, 313 participants: MD -0.59 L/d, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.01; I² = 89%; low certainty evidence), and probably made little or no difference to infectious complications (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.78; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether PD compared to extracorporeal therapy has any effects on weekly delivered Kt/V (2 studies, 263 participants: MD -2.47, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.22; I² = 99%; very low certainty evidence), correction of acidosis (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 13.60; I² = 96%; very low certainty evidence), or duration of dialysis (2 studies, 170 participants: MD -1.01 hours, 95% CI -91.49 to 89.47; I² = 98%; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity was high and this may be due to the different extracorporeal therapies used.One study (61 participants) reported little or no difference to all-cause mortality, kidney function recovery, or infection between low and high and intensity PD. Weekly delivered Kt/V and fluid removal was lower with low compared to high intensity PD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate (mortality, recovery of kidney function), low (infectious complications), or very low certainty evidence (correction of acidosis) there is probably little or no difference between PD and extracorporeal therapy for treating AKI. Fluid removal (low certainty) and weekly delivered Kt/V (very low certainty) may be higher with extracorporeal therapy.

Comparing continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration and peritoneal dialysis in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

There are few reports on the role of peritoneal dialysis in critically ill patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapies.

METHODS

Patients with acute kidney injury and multi-organ involvement were randomly allotted to continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration(CVVHDF, group A) or to continuous peritoneal dialysis (CPD, group B). Cause and severity of renal failure were assessed at the time of initiating dialysis. Primary outcome was the composite correction of uremia, acidosis, fluid overload, and hyperkalemia. Secondary outcomes were improvement of sensorium and hemodynamic instability, survival, and cost.

RESULTS

Groups A and B comprised 25 patients each with mean ages of 45.32 ± 17.53 and 48.44 ± 17.64 respectively. They received 21.68 ± 13.46 hours and 66.02 ± 69.77 hours of dialysis respectively (p = 0.01). Composite correction was achieved in 12 patients of group A (48%) and in 14 patients of group B (56%). Urea and creatinine clearances were significantly higher in group A (21.72 ± 10.41 mL/min and 9.36 ± 4.93 mL/min respectively vs. 22.13 ± 9.61 mL/min and 10.5 ± 6.07 mL/min, p < 0.001). Acidosis was present in 21 patients of group A (84%) and in 16 of group B (64%); correction was better in group B (p < 0.001). Correction of fluid overload was faster and the amount of ultrafiltrate was significantly higher in group A (20.31 ± 21.86 L vs. 5.31 ± 5.75 L, p<0.001). No significant differences were seen in correction of hyperkalemia, altered sensorium, or hemodynamic disturbance. Mortality was 84% in group A and 72% in group B. Factors that influenced outcome were the APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score (p=0.02) and need for ventilatory support (p < 0.01). Cost of disposables was higher in group A than in group B [INR 7184 ± 1436 vs. INR 3009 ± 1643, p < 0.001 (US$1=INR 47)].

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this pilot study, CPD may be a cost-conscious alternative to CVVHDF; differences in metabolic and clinical outcomes are minimal.