Automated peritoneal dialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for people with kidney failure
Esmee Driehuis,Marga Eshuis,Alferso Abrahams,Karlien François,Robin Wm Vernooij
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006515.pub2
2024-09-11
Abstract:Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based kidney replacement therapy (KRT) performed in people with kidney failure. PD can be performed by manual filling and draining of the abdominal cavity, i.e. continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), or using a device connected to the PD catheter that is programmed to perform PD exchanges, i.e. automated PD (APD). APD is considered to have several advantages over CAPD, such as a lower incidence of peritonitis, fewer mechanical complications, and greater psychosocial acceptability. Acknowledging the increasing uptake of APD in incident and prevalent patients undergoing PD, it is important to re-evaluate the evidence on the comparative clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD compared to CAPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2007. Objectives: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD to CAPD in people with kidney failure. Search methods: In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies until 29 August 2024. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing APD with CAPD in adults (≥ 18 years) with kidney failure. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects meta-analyses, expressing effect estimates as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main results: Two RCTs (131 randomised people) comparing APD with CAPD were included in this update. One RCT had a follow-up of six months, and one RCT had a follow-up of 24 months. The risk of bias in the included studies was mostly low, except for the high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of APD compared to CAPD on death, hospitalisations, PD-related peritonitis, change of dialysis modality, residual kidney function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), overhydration, blood pressure, exit-site infections, tunnel infections, mechanical complications, PD catheter removal, or dialysis adequacy measures. These results were largely based on low to very low certainty evidence; hence, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions. Authors' conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists to decide between APD and CAPD in kidney failure patients with regard to clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, current evidence is insufficient as a guide for clinical practice. Given that the sample sizes of existing studies are generally small with insufficient follow-up, there is a need for large-scale, multicentre studies. Future research should focus on possible differences between APD and CAPD in residual kidney function, euvolaemia, and patient-reported outcomes such as HRQoL, symptoms, patient satisfaction and life participation.