A comparison of urgent-start of hemodialysis vs urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis study

Yuanyuan Qi,Wenkai Zhang,Juanli Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03904-7

IF: 2.2662

2024-01-10

International Urology and Nephrology

Abstract:To investigate the effects of urgent-start HD(USHD) and urgent-start PD(USPD) on dialysis patients and provide references for relevant clinical practice.

urology & nephrology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The effect of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start hemodialysis on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Peixin Duan,Hailuo Zhang,Yun Zhang,Zhang, Yun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-03999-6

IF: 2.2662

2024-03-06

International Urology and Nephrology

Abstract:Recently, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested in place of urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these methods is still unclear. This study compared the outcomes of urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD in CKD patients.

urology & nephrology
Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients: Complications and Outcomes

Haijiao Jin,Wei Fang,Mingli Zhu,Zanzhe Yu,Yan Fang,Hao Yan,Minfang Zhang,Qin Wang,Xiajing Che,Yuanyuan Xie,Jiaying Huang,Chunhua Hu,Haifen Zhang,Shan Mou,Zhaohui Ni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166181

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Several studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients. Methods In this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups. Results Our study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate. Conclusion In an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.
A Comparison Between Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis and Automatic Peritoneal Dialysis on Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis.

Chang Wang,Xiao Fu,Yuan Yang,Jun Deng,Hong-qing Zhang,Hong-mei Deng,Jia Lu,Youming Peng,Hong Liu,Fu-you Liu,Yinghong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000477178

2017-01-01

American Journal of Nephrology

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Urgent-start dialysis is a major problem for incident dialysis population. Urgent start on hemodialysis is associated with an increased risk of infectious or mechanical complications, and its mortality is equal to or higher than that of urgent start on peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, compared to patients starting PD in a planned setting, those on urgent-started PD have an increased risk of mechanical complications and lower technique survival.METHODS:In this study, 101 adult incident dialysis patients (≥18 years old) who underwent Tenckhoff catheter implantation were enrolled. All of the patients were grouped according to the urgent PD mode: the intermittent PD (IPD) or automatic PD (APD) group, and patients were followed for 1 year. The paired or independent t test was used to analyze the change of laboratory variables. Pearson chi-square test was applied to compare the short outcome between the 2 groups.RESULTS:When PD was treated for 7 days and 1 month, the APD group has the lower serum potassium and phosphorus levels than the IPD group. The incidence of catheter dysfunction was significantly lower in the APD group. The morbidity of infection associated with PD in the first year was lower in the APD group despite no significant difference existing. The technique survival and patient survival rate have no evident difference between the 2 groups.CONCLUSION:Compared to IPD, urgent start on APD could reduce the risk of mechanical complication, which could be considered a gentle, safe, and feasible alternative to urgent start on IPD.
Complications and Prognosis of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Urgent-Start Hemodialysis in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients

Jin Haijiao,Fang Wei,Zhu Mingli,Yu Zanzhe,Fang Yan,Yan Hao,Zhang Minfang,Wang Qin,Che Xiajing,Xie Yuanyuan,Huang Jiaying,Hu Chunhua,Zhang Haifen,Mou Shan,Ni Zhaohui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-7097.2016.10.004

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the complications and outcomes of urgent?start peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) in end?stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and explore the safety and effectiveness of PD which was as an urgent?start dialysis modality in ESRD patients. Methods All patients for urgent?start dialysis, who initiated dialysis without a long?term dialysis access or had the long?term dialysis access under 30 days in Renji Hospital from January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014, were enrolled. According to the dialysis modalities, patients were divided into PD group and HD group. Participants were followed up until death, transferred to other centers, lost of follow up or January 1st 2016. Dialysis?related complications within 30 days of implantation, complications of reimplantation and the occurrence of bacteremia between two groups were compared, and their survival rates were tested by Kaplan?Meier curves. Results Among 178 patients in this study, there were 96 (53.9%) patients in PD group and 82 (46.1%) patients in HD group. Compared with those of HD group, patients of PD group presented more cardiovascular disease [21(21.9%) vs 8(9.8%), P=0.029], higher serum potassium [(4.5±0.8) mmol/L vs (4.3±0.8) mmol/L, P=0.038], but less heart failure (NYHA Ⅲ?Ⅳ) [26(30.2%) vs 40 (48.8%), P=0.014], lower brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) [328.5 (129.5, 776.8) ng/L vs 503.5(206.0, 1430.0) ng/L, P=0.008], higher hemoglobin [(81.5 ± 17.7) g/L vs (75.3 ± 22.5) g/L, P=0.039], higher serum albumin (33.5±5.7) g/L vs (31.3±6.7) g/L, P=0.022] and higher serum pre?albumin (304.5±78.0) mg/L vs (257.0 ± 86.1) mg/L, P<0.001]. PD group presented less dialysis?related complications [5 (5.2%) vs 20(24.4%), P<0.001], less dialysis?related complications requiring reimplantation [1(1.0%) vs 20(24.4%), P<0.001] and less bacteraemia [3(3.1%) vs 11(13.4%), P=0.011]. The 3?, 6?and 12?month patient survival rates of PD and HD group were 97.9% vs 98.4%, 97.9% vs 98.4%, and 92.1%vs 93.0% respectively, and no significant difference was found (Log ? rank=0.004, P=0.947). Conclusions Patients with urgent?start PD have less complications within 30 days of implantation and occurrence of bacteremia than patients with urgent?start HD, and the same survival rates. PD may be a feasible and safe urgent?start dialysis modality for ESRD patients.
Comparison of Unplanned/Urgent‐Start Versus Conventional‐Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Yunfen Xu,Weizhong Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.13198

2024-03-15

Seminars in Dialysis

Abstract:The timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation, whether conventional‐start (planned) or urgent‐start (unplanned), may impact the outcomes of PD and the rate of associated complications in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of unplanned/urgent‐start PD versus conventional‐start PD in this cohort of patients. Electronic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases was done from inception until July 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of unplanned/urgent‐start and conventional‐start PD in CKD patients. Outcomes of interest included mechanical complications, post‐procedure infections, mortality, and transfer to hemodialysis. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and the influence of individual studies on the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were evaluated. Twenty‐seven studies were finally included in the review. The overall risk of post‐procedure infectious was comparable for both PD initiation methods (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.83–1.34). Similarly, the risks for peritonitis and exit site infections did not differ significantly. However, urgent‐start PD correlated with a significantly higher risk of overall mechanical complications (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23–2.34). Specifically, the risk for leaks was notably higher (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.67–3.65) in the urgent‐start group compared to the conventional‐start PD group. Urgent‐start PD correlated with significantly increased mortality rates (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.39–2.41). There was no difference in the likelihood of technique survival and transfer to hemodialysis. Both urgent‐start and conventional‐start PD correlated with similar risks of overall infectious complications. Urgent‐start PD resulted in significantly increased risks of mechanical complications and mortality. Our findings emphasize the need for meticulous planning and consideration when opting for PD initiation.

urology & nephrology
Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Prognosis of Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-analysis.

Jingyuan Lu,Danye Shi,Xinhui Zhao,Minhui Xi,Hualin Qi,Qiang He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6007698

IF: 2.809

2022-01-01

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

Abstract:Objective. This meta-analysis is aimed at systematically assessing the efficacy and prognosis of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies to evaluate the two different dialysis methods for ESRD. The search time was set from 2010 to 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata16.0. The treatment group received PD, while the control group was given HD. Results. Out of 317 articles initially retrieved, 14 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis. The analysis results showed that there was no marked difference in the 1-year survival rate between the two groups (RR=1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10; P>0.05), but the incidence rate of adverse reactions in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (RR=0.51; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.70; P<0.05). In addition, PD and HD treatments caused significant decreases in serum creatinine levels (PD, SMD=−2.91; 95% CI: -3.79, -2.04; P<0.05; HD, SMD=−3.09; 95% CI: -4.01, -2.16; P<0.05) and blood urea nitrogen levels (PD, SMD=−2.54, 95% CI: -3.37, -1.72, P<0.05; HD, SMD=−2.62, 95% CI: -3.47, -1.77, P<0.05); however, there was no significant statistical difference in posttreatment levels of serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the hemoglobin (SMD=0.56, 95% CI: 0.07, 1.06; P<0.05) and serum albumin (SMD=1.11, 95% CI: 0.46, 1.76, P<0.05) levels were significantly increased in the treatment group after treatment. Conclusion. In summary, both PD and HD can improve renal function in uremic patients, but PD is superior to HD in reducing the incidence of adverse reactions, improving the nutritional status, and therefore improving the quality of life of patients.
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD

Haijiao Jin,Wei Fang,Ling Wang,Xiujuan Zang,Yueyi Deng,Guoqing Wu,Ying Li,Xiaonong Chen,Niansong Wang,Gengru Jiang,Zhiyong Guo,Xiaoxia Wang,Yinghui Qi,Shifan Lv,Zhaohui Ni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2024.06.032

2024-06-27

Abstract:Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) shows promise for urgent-start dialysis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with automated PD (APD) having advantages. However, there is limited multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence comparing APD with temporary hemodialysis (HD) for this indication in China. Methods: This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications. Results: The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424). Conclusion: For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.
Prognostic analysis of different urgent-start dialysis methods in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease

杨月,于莉,崔文鹏,周文华

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2021.07.006

2021-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To investigate whether peritoneal dialysis can replace hemodialysis as an option for urgent-start dialysis for elderly patients with end-stage renal disease who need emergency initial dialysis.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study, with enrolment of patients ≥65 years with end-stage renal disease who started hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for the first time at the nephrology department of our hospital between January 1, 2013 and June 1, 2019 and were followed up regularly.All patients started dialysis within 5 days of catheterization.According to different dialysis methods, patients were divided into the urgent-start hemodialysis(USHD)group and the urgent-start peritoneal dialysis(USPD)group, and were followed up until December 31, 2019.Short-term(30 days after the procedure)dialysis-related complications and survival were compared between the two groups.Results:A total of 89 elderly patients with end-stage renal disease receiving urgent-start dialysis were included, with 40 cases in the USPD group and 49 cases in the USHD group.There was no significant difference in the incidences of infection-related complications(0.0% vs.2.5%), non-infection-related complications(2.0% vs.2.5%), re-catheterization(0 vs.0)and bacteremia(0 vs.0)between the two groups( P> 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the median survival times of patients with USHD and with USPD were 63.0 months and 38.0 months, respectively, with no statistical significance(Log Rank, χ2=0.025, P=0.88). The Charlson comorbidity index( HR: 1.205, 95% CI: 1.026-1.415, P=0.023)and albumin level( HR: 0.949, 95% CI: 0.903-0.997, P=0.037)were independent risk factors for the survival and prognosis of elderly patients with urgent-start dialysis.Furthermore, we stratified and made an interactive analysis of the albumin level and the comorbidity index of elderly patients with urgent-start dialysis and found that there was no significant difference between the two modes of dialysis in the survival rate of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease( P>0.05). Conclusions:It is safe and effective to start dialysis within 5 days after peritoneal dialysis catheterization.For elderly patients with end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis can replace hemodialysis as an option for urgent-start dialysis.
Urgent-start dialysis: Comparison of complications and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis

Dayana Bitencourt Dias,Marcela Lara Mendes,Jacqueline Teixeira Caramori,Pâmela Falbo dos Reis,Daniela Ponce

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896860820915021

2020-03-30

Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis

Abstract:Background: Few studies have evaluated the viability and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start renal replacement therapy (RRT). This study aimed to compare infectious and mechanical complications related to urgent-start PD and HD. Secondary outcomes were to identify risk factors for complications and mortality related to urgent-start dialysis. Methods: A quasi-experimental study with incident patients receiving PD and HD in a Brazilian university hospital, between July 2014 and December 2017. Subjects included individuals with final-stage chronic kidney disease who required immediate RRT, that is, HD through central venous catheter or PD in which the catheter was implanted by a nephrologist and utilized for 72 h, without previous training. Patients with PD were subjected, initially, to high-volume PD for metabolic compensation. After hospital discharge, they remained in intermittent PD in the dialysis unit until training was completed. Mechanical and infectious complications were compared, as well as the recovery of renal function and survival. Results: In total, 93 patients were included in PD and 91 in HD. PD and HD groups were similar regarding age (58 ± 17 vs. 60 ± 15 years; p = 0.49), frequency of diabetes mellitus (37.6% vs. 50.5%; p = 0.10), other comorbidities (74.1% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.67) and biochemical parameters at the beginning of RRT, that is, creatinine (9.1 ± 4.1 vs. 8.0 ± 2.8; p = 0.09), serum albumin (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = 0.06) and haemoglobin (9.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 2.0; p = 0.44). After a minimum follow-up period of 180 days and a maximum follow-up period of 2 years, there was no difference regarding mechanical complications (24.7% vs. 37.4%; p = 0.06) or bacteraemia (15.0% vs. 24.0%; p = 0.11); however, there was a difference regarding infection of the exit site (25.8% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.04) and diuresis maintenance [700 (0–1500) vs. 0 (0–500); p < 0.001], with better results in the PD group. There was better phosphorus control at 180 days in the PD group (62.4% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.008), with a lower requirement for phosphate binder usage (28% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), erythropoietin (18.3% vs. 49.5%; p < 0.001) and anti-hypertensives (11.8% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.003). Time to death was similar between groups. In the multivariate analysis, PD was a predictor of renal function recovery [odds ratio: 3.95 (1.01–15.4)]. Conclusion: PD is a viable and safe alternative to HD in a scenario of urgent-start RRT with complication rates and outcomes similar to those of HD, highlighting the results regarding renal function recovery.
[Effects of Interim Hemodialysis on Survival and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Maintenance Peritoneal Dialysis].

Wei Bian,Jichao Guan,Xishao Xie,Jin Tong,Xiaohui Zhang,Zhangfei Shou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2016.03.13

2016-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effects of interim hemodialysis (HD) on survival and clinical outcomes in patients with maintenance peritoneal dialysis (PD).METHODS:The clinical data of 908 patients undergoing maintenance PD from January 2010 to December 2014 registered in Zhejiang Dialysis Regisration System were retrospectively analyzed. Among all PD patients, 176 cases received interim HD for less than 3 months, and then transferred to PD (transfer group) and 732 cases had initial PD (non-transfer group). The demographic parameters, biochemical data, comorbidity, details of peritonitis and transplantation were documented. Survival curves were made by the Kaplan-Meier method; univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with Cox proportional hazard regression model to identify risk factors of mortality.RESULTS:Compared with patients in transfer group, patients in non-transfer group had significantly higher serum albumin and total Kt/V levels. The survival rate was significantly higher in non-transfer group, but there was no significant difference in technique survival between two groups. After multivariable adjustment, initial dialysis modality (HR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.01~2.56), age (HR=1.07, 95% CI:1.05~1.09) and serum albumin (HR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.93~0.99) and Charslon comorbidity index (HR=2.54, 95% CI:1.63~3.94) were independent factors for long-term survival.CONCLUSION:Patients who transfer to PD after interim HD have lower survival rate than patients who start with and are maintained on PD. HD is an independent risk factor for PD patients, therefore, patients with PD should be well informed and educated with dialysis protocols.
Complications and outcomes of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease in China: a retrospective cohort study

Xiujuan Zang,Xiu Du,Lin Li,Changlin Mei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032849

IF: 3.006

2020-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract: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/m 2 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.

medicine, general & internal
Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis for patients with end stage renal disease: a 10-year retrospective study

Hongjian Ye,Xiao Yang,Chunyan Yi,Qunying Guo,Yafang Li,Qiongqiong Yang,Wei Chen,Haiping Mao,Jianbo Li,Yagui Qiu,Xunhua Zheng,Dihua Zhang,Jianxiong Lin,Zhijian Li,Zongpei Jiang,Fengxian Huang,Xueqing Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-019-1408-9

2019-07-02

BMC Nephrology

Abstract:BackgroundUrgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) can help patients with end-stage renal diseases (ESRD) that are referred late to dialysis. However, catheter patency and related complications of urgent-start PD have not been thoroughly clarified. We investigated the clinical outcomes of urgent-start PD in a Chinese cohort.MethodsWe enrolled ESRD patients who received urgent-start PD (starting PD within 14 days after catheter insertion) in our center from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014, and followed them up for 10 years. The primary outcome was catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term complications related to urgent-start PD.ResultsTotally 2059 patients (58.9% male, mean age 47.6 ± 15.9 years) were enrolled. Few perioperative complications were observed, including significant hemorrhage (n = 3, 0.1%) and bowel perforation (n = 0). Early peritonitis occurred in 24 (1.2%) patients (0.28 episodes per patient-year). Within the first month after catheter insertion, functional catheter malfunction occurred in 85 (4.1%) patients, and abdominal wall complications (including hernia, hydrothorax, hydrocele, and leakage) in 36 (1.7%) patients. During a median 36.5 (17.7–61.4) months of follow-up, 75 (3.6%) patients experienced catheter failure, and 291 (14.1%) had death-censoring technique failure. At the end of 1-month, 1 -year, 3-year, and 5-year, catheter patency rate was 97.6, 96.4, 96.2, 96.2%; and technique survival rate was 99.5, 97.0, 90.3, 82.7%, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, every 5-year increase in age was associated with 19% decrease of risk for catheter failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.89). Male sex (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.00–2.04), diabetic nephropathy (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.08–2.25) and low hemoglobin levels (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.98) were independent risk factors for abdominal wall complications.ConclusionsUrgent-start PD is a safe and efficacious option for unplanned ESRD patients. A well-trained PD team, a standardized catheter insertion procedure by experienced nephrologists, and a carefully designed initial PD prescription as well as comprehensive follow-up care, might be essential for the successful urgent-start PD program.

urology & nephrology
Impact of Initial Dialysis Modality on the Survival of Patients with ESRD in Eastern China: a Propensity-Matched Study.

Xi Yao,Wenhua Lei,Nan Shi,Weiqiang Lin,Xiaoying Du,Ping Zhang,Jianghua Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-01909-3

2020-01-01

BMC Nephrology

Abstract:Abstract Background There are conflicting research results about the survival differences between hemodialysis(HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). The present study estimated the survival and the relative mortality hazard for incident HD and PD patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) in eastern China. Methods This study examined a cohort of patients with ESRD who initiated dialysis therapy in Zhejiang province between Jan of 2010 and Dec of 2014, followed up until the end of 2015. PD patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion with HD patients, and Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to explore the survival of them. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied to identify the factors that predict survival by treatment modality. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratifying patients according to gender, age, causes of ESRD and comorbidities. Results Among a total of 22,379 enrolled patients (17,029 HD patients and 5350 PD patients), 5350 matched pairs were identified, and followed for a median of 29 months (3 ~ 72 months). Kaplan-Meier survival curve revealed that overall mortality rate was significantly higher in HD patients than in PD patients (log-rank test, P < 0.001), after adjusting by gender, age, primary causes of ESRD and comorbidities. HD was consistently associated with an increased risk for morality compared with PD in the matched cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1.140, 95%CI: 1.023 ~ 1.271). In subgroup analyses, male, younger patients, or nondiabetic patients aged less than 65 years after adjustment of covariates, initiating with PD was associated with a significantly lower mortality compared with HD. In the multivariate Cox proportional risks model, age, diabetic nephropathy (DN), other/unknown causes of ESRD, and patients with a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer showed statistical significance in explaining survival of incident ESRD patients. Conclusions ESRD patients who initiated dialysis with PD yielded superior survival rates compared to HD. Increased use of PD as initial dialysis modality in ESRD patients could be encouraged in Chinese population.
Feasibility of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in Older Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Single-Center Experience.

Haijiao Jin,Zhaohui Ni,Shan Mou,Renhua Lu,Wei Fang,Jiaying Huang,Chunhua Hu,Haifen Zhang,Hao Yan,Zhenyuan Li,Zanzhe Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2017.00002

2017-01-01

Peritoneal Dialysis International

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) frequently require urgent-start dialysis. Recent evidence suggests that peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in these patients, including in older patients.METHODS:This retrospective study enrolled patients aged > 65 years with ESRD who underwent urgent dialysis without functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center, from January 2011 to December 2014. Patients were grouped based on their dialysis modality (PD or HD). Patients unable to tolerate PD catheter insertion or wait for PD were excluded. Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion. Short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the 2 groups.RESULTS:A total of 94 patients were enrolled, including 53 (56.4%) who underwent PD. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly lower in PD compared with HD patients (3 [5.7%] vs 10 [24.4%], p = 0.009). Logistic regression identified urgent-start HD as an independent risk factor for dialysis-related complications compared with urgent-start PD (odds ratio 4.760 [1.183 - 19.147], p = 0.028). The 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival rates in the PD and HD groups were 92.3% vs 94.6%, 82.4% vs 81.3%, 75.7% vs 74.2%, and 69.5% vs 60.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (log-rank = 0.011, p = 0.915).CONCLUSION:Urgent-start PD was associated with fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and similar survival to urgent-start HD in older patients with ESRD. Peritoneal dialysis may thus be a safe and effective dialysis modality for older ESRD patients requiring urgent dialysis.
Automated Peritoneal Dialysis As a Cost-Effective Urgent-Start Dialysis Option for ESRD Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Haijiao Jin,Renhua Lu,Shifan Lv,Ling Wang,Shan Mou,Minfang Zhang,Qin Wang,Huihua Pang,Hao Yan,Zhenyuan Li,Miaoling Che,Jianxiao Shen,Jiayi Yan,Aiping Gu,Haifen Zhang,Qian Liu,Nina Fang,Yan Jin,Zhaohui Ni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988221105903

2022-01-01

Abstract: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.
Prognostic comparison of patients starting peritoneal dialysis within two weeks and more than two weeks after catheter implantation

Yao-rong LIU,Wei FANG,Lin ZHANG,Ai-wu LIN,Zhao-hui NI,Jia-qi QIAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-7097.2013.02.003

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the outcomes of patients starting peritoneal dialysis (PD)within two weeks and more than two weeks after catheter implantation.Methods All the patients undergoing Tenckhoff catheter implantation and initiating PD in Renji Hospital from January 2001 to December 2010 were enrolled in the study.Patients started PD within 2 weeks after catheter insertion were defined as urgent group,and those started PD 2 weeks later were defined as planned group.Kaplan-Meier curves and Log-rank tests were used to compare outcomes between two groups.Results Among 657 patients in this study,median break-in period was 6 days of 469 (71.4％)patients in urgent group and 26 days of 188 (28.6％) patients in planned group.Compared to planned group,patients of urgent group were younger [(52.6± 17.3) vs (56.1± 15.3) year,P =0.017],had less eGFR [(5.36±2.03) vs (6.50±2.50) ml· min-1 · (1.73 m2)-1,P ＜ 0.01],lower serum albumin [(34.0±5.7) vs (36.2±5.9) g/L,P ＜ 0.01] and hemoglobin [(76.9± 18.8) vs (80.8 ± 17.9) g/L,P =0.018],and higher phosphate [(2.19±0.67) vs (1.98±0.52) mmol/L,P＜ 0.01].Urgent group presented more catheter dysfunctions needed to transfer to hemodialysis (2.1％ vs 0％,P =0.044).The 1-,2-,3-and 5-year technique survival rates of urgent and planned group were 94％ vs 98％,92％ vs 94％,90％ vs 92％and 86％ vs 85％ respectively.There was no significant difference in technique survival (Log-rank =1.536,P =0.22) and peritonitis-free survival (Log-rank =0.035,P =0.85) between two groups.The 1-,2-,3-and 5-year patient survival rates of urgent and planned group were 90％ vs 95％,81％ vs 90％,74％ vs 79％ and 67％ vs 74％ respectively,and no significant difference was found (Log-rank =2.364,P =0.12).Conclusions Although patients needing urgent initial PD have poorer residual renal function and nutritional condition compared to those of planned initial PD,their outcomes are similar.Peritoneal dialysis may be a feasible and safe dialysis modality for patients who need urgent start.
Prognosis of urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yueming Liu,Limiao Dai,Baoqiao Wu,Qiang He,Juan Ji,Ji He,Yue Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022X.2024.2312533

IF: 3.222

2024-02-23

Renal Failure

Abstract:Abstract Objectives Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal timing for the initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after catheter placement. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Exact date of data collection From inception till July 31, 2023. Main outcome measures To assess the outcomes and safety of unplanned PD initiation (<14/7 days after catheter insertion) in cohort studies. Results Fifteen studies involving 3054 participants were included. (1) The risk of unplanned initiation of leakage and Obstruction was no difference in both the break-in period (BI) <14 and BI < 7 groups. (2) Catheter displacement was more likely to occur in the emergency initiation group with BI < 7. (3) No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding infectious complications. (4) There was no difference in transition to HD between patients with BI < 7 and BI < 14 d. Conclusion Infectious complications of unplanned initiation of peritoneal dialysis did not differ from planned initiation. Emergency initiation in the BI < 7 group had higher catheter displacement, but heterogeneity was higher. There were no differences in leakage or obstruction in either group. Catheter survival was the same for emergency initiation of peritoneal dialysis compared with planned initiation of peritoneal dialysis and did not increase the risk of conversion to hemodialysis. Registration This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, number: CRD42023431369)

Medicine
Peritoneal Dialysis as an Option for Unplanned Dialysis Initiation in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease and Diabetes Mellitus.

Haijiao Jin,Zhaohui Ni,Xiajing Che,Leyi Gu,Mingli Zhu,Jiangzi Yuan,Jiaying Huang,Aiping Gu,Yan Jin,Hao Yan,Qin Wang,Zanzhe Yu,Wenyan Zhou,Wei Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000493176

2019-01-01

Blood Purification

Abstract:Aims: This study aimed to compare the short-term complications and long-term prognosis between urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD), and explore the safety and feasibility of PD in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with diabetes. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled ESRD patients with diabetes who required urgentstart dialysis at a single center from January 2011 to December 2014. Short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications and patient survival trends were compared between patients receiving PD and HD. Results: Eighty patients were included in the study, including 50 (62.5%) who underwent PD. The incidence of dialysis-related complications and complications requiring reinsertion during the first 30 days was significantly lower in PD patients. Logistic regression identified urgent-start HD as an independent risk factor for dialysis-related complications compared with urgent-start PD. The patient survival rate was higher in the PD compared to that in the HD group. Conclusions: PD may be acceptable, safe, and feasible for urgent-start dialysis in ESRD patients with diabetes. (c) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
Feasibility of a break-in period of less than 24 hours for urgent start peritoneal dialysis: a multicenter study

Xi Wen,Liming Yang,Zhanshan Sun,Xiaoxuan Zhang,Xueyan Zhu,Wenhua Zhou,Xiaoqing Hu,Shichen Liu,Ping Luo,Wenpeng Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022x.2022.2049306

IF: 3.222

2022-03-10

Renal Failure

Abstract: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.

urology & nephrology
Automated Peritoneal Dialysis in Urgent-Start Dialysis ESRD Patients: Safety and Dialysis Adequacy.

Haijiao Jin,Shifan Lv,Ling Wang,Minfang Zhang,Qin Wang,Wei Fang,Xinghui Lin,Xiajing Che,Hao Yan,Zanzhe Yu,Na Jiang,Zhenyuan Li,Miaoling Che,Li Ding,Jiaying Huang,Yin Zhou,Zhaohui Ni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.13943

2022-01-01

Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis

Abstract:Background Recent evidence suggests that automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. Methods This prospective study enrolled end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients who had started APD as an urgent-start dialysis modality at a single center. Dialysis-related complications were recorded. Dialysis adequacy and electrolytes imbalance were compared between baseline, 14 and 42 days after catheter insertion. Technique survival and patient survival were also recorded. Results A total of 36 patients were included in the study. Mean follow-up duration was 22 months. During the follow-up, 11 PD patients (30.6%) developed dialysis-related complications. Only two patients (5.6%) required re-insertion and one patients (2.8%) transfer to HD. The 2-year technique survival rate and patient survival rate were 94.4% and 97.2%, respectively. Conclusion In considering safety and dialysis adequacy, APD could be a feasible dialysis modality for urgent-start dialysis in ESRD patients, using a standard procedure.

A comparison of urgent-start of hemodialysis vs urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis study

The effect of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and urgent-start hemodialysis on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients: Complications and Outcomes

A Comparison Between Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis and Automatic Peritoneal Dialysis on Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis.

Complications and Prognosis of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Urgent-Start Hemodialysis in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients

Comparison of Unplanned/Urgent‐Start Versus Conventional‐Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Prognosis of Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-analysis.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD

Prognostic analysis of different urgent-start dialysis methods in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease

Urgent-start dialysis: Comparison of complications and outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis

[Effects of Interim Hemodialysis on Survival and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Maintenance Peritoneal Dialysis].

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

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis for patients with end stage renal disease: a 10-year retrospective study

Impact of Initial Dialysis Modality on the Survival of Patients with ESRD in Eastern China: a Propensity-Matched Study.

Feasibility of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in Older Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Single-Center Experience.

Automated Peritoneal Dialysis As a Cost-Effective Urgent-Start Dialysis Option for ESRD Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Prognostic comparison of patients starting peritoneal dialysis within two weeks and more than two weeks after catheter implantation

Prognosis of urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Peritoneal Dialysis as an Option for Unplanned Dialysis Initiation in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease and Diabetes Mellitus.

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

Automated Peritoneal Dialysis in Urgent-Start Dialysis ESRD Patients: Safety and Dialysis Adequacy.