Randomized Study of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Urgent-Start Temporary Hemodialysis in Patients Transitioning to Kidney Failure

Abstract

IntroductionWe sought to evaluate the efficacy and complications of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with urgent-start temporary hemodialysis (HD) followed by subsequent elective transfer to PD.MethodsIn this multicenter open-label prospective randomized controlled trial, adults with kidney failure who required immediate dialysis but did not have access to definitive dialysis were randomized to receive either urgent-start PD or urgent-start temporary HD over 2 weeks to 4 weeks followed by a transition to a chronic PD program according to the country policy. The primary outcome was the composite end point of operation-related, catheter-related, and dialysis-related complications at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were 6-week mortality, 6-week technique survival, and 1-week composite complications.ResultsA total of 207 participants requiring urgent-start dialysis were enrolled from 3 tertiary hospitals between November 2018 and February 2020 as follows: 104 were assigned to receive urgent-start PD, and 103 were assigned to urgent-start temporary HD. Compared with urgent-start temporary HD, urgent-start PD had a lower composite complication rate at 6 weeks (19% vs. 37%, risk ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.33–0.83), which was primarily accounted for by a reduction in dialysis-related complications (4% vs. 24%, RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06–0.44). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to patient and technique survival rates at 1 week and 6 weeks.ConclusionAn urgent-start PD strategy during the transition of kidney failure to chronic dialysis is safe and has fewer complications commensurate with their reduced exposure to procedural risk than urgent-start temporary HD up to 6 weeks after dialysis commencement.