Urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Is there room for more?

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is still offered to a minor subset of patients. One way to increment the utilization rates of this technique is the early start of PD after catheter placement, but there are several concerns related to this approach. MethodsRetrospective analysis in a single-center; 52 patients, 34.6% of the patients started in the first 14 days after catheter placement (Urgent start Group – Group 1) and percentage started PD in a conventional mode (Non-urgent start Group – Group 2). Baseline data, short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes, mechanical complications and infectious episodes were compared among Groups. ResultsAt baseline, Group 1 had an higher Charlson Comobidity Index (CCI). Exchange volumes were significantly lower in Group 1, as expected. Short-term outcomes were equal except for iPTH and albumin, both lower in urgent-start Group (p<0.05). Episodes of leak, catheter dysfunction and rate of infections were similar among Groups (p>0.05). In Urgent-start Group we didn’t observed a higher risk for the first peritonitis episode (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.24–1.99; p>0.05), higher dropout rate or risk to quit the technique (long rank test, p>0.05; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29–1.13; p>0.05). ConclusionAccording to our observations, urgent-start PD seems to be a valid and safe alternative to urgent hemodialysis with central venous catheter and should be offered to patients without major contraindications.