Urgent-start Peritoneal Dialysis Research Articles

Survival, cumulative hospital days and infectious complications in urgent-start PD compared with urgent-start HD.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) carries a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to urgent-start haemodialysis (HD) but is only sparsely applied due to resource issues and concerns of complication risks. Furthermore, few data exist on adverse outcomes associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertions in urgent-start HD patients. Thus, we sought to compare patient and dialysis-related outcomes in patients undergoing urgent-start PD or HD. All patients initiating urgent-start PD in a tertiary research hospital in 2005-2018 were included in this retrospective, single-centre, comparative study and matched with urgent-start HD patients of similar age and chronic kidney disease aetiology. All urgent-start PDs were initiated within 72 h after catheter insertion, and urgent-start HDs were performed via a CVC. All analyses were performed at 3 months and at 1 year of follow-up, respectively. Thirty-three patients who commenced urgent-start PD and 58 matched urgent-start HD control patients were included. Altogether, 26 patients (29%; PD: 36%, HD 24%) died within the 1-year follow-up, and patient survival was similar at 3 months (hazard ratio (HR): 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-3.81, p = 0.82) and at 1 year of follow-up (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.30-1.39, p = 0.26) between the study groups. There were no differences in the total kidney replacement therapy (KRT)-related infection rate (p = 0.66) or cumulative first-year hospital care days (p = 0.43) between the treatment groups. Altogether, 139 CVCs were inserted during the 1-year follow-up. The number of CVCs per patient was associated with the emergence of blood culture-positive bacteraemia and increased cumulative first-year hospital care days. Patient survival, cumulative first-year hospital care days and total KRT-related infection rate at 3 months and 1-year follow-up are similar between urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD patients. Furthermore, CVC insertion rate is associated with incident blood culture-positive bacteraemia and increased cumulative first-year hospital care days.

Risk factors of different mortality periods in older patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: a retrospective observational study

BackgroundThe first six months of therapy represents a high-risk period for peritoneal dialysis (PD) failure. The risk of death in the first six months is higher for older patients treated with urgent-start PD (USPD). However, there are still gaps in research on mortality and risk factors for death in this particular group of patients. We aimed to investigate mortality rates and risk factors for death in older patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving USPD within and after six months of therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively studied the clinical information of older adults aged ≥ 65 years with ESRD who received USPD between 2013 and 2019 in five Chinese hospitals. Patients were followed up to June 30, 2020. The mortality and risk factors for death in the first six months of USPD treatment and beyond were analyzed.ResultsOf the 379 elderly patients in the study, 130 died over the study period. During the follow-up period, the highest number (45, 34.6%) of deaths occurred within the first six months. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of death. The baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III–IV cardiac function [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.457, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.200–5.030, p = 0.014] and higher white blood cell (WBC) count (HR = 1.082, 95% CI: 1.021–1.147, p = 0.008) increased the mortality risk within six months of USPD. The baseline NYHA class III–IV cardiac function (HR = 1.945, 95% CI: 1.149–3.294, p = 0.013), lower WBC count (HR = 0.917, 95% CI: 0.845–0.996, p = 0.040), lower potassium levels (HR = 0.584, 95% CI: 0.429–0.796, p = 0.001), and higher calcium levels (HR = 2.160, 95% CI: 1.025–4.554, p = 0.043) increased the mortality risk after six months of USPD.ConclusionDifferent risk factors correlated with mortality in older adults with ESRD within and after six months of undergoing USPD, including baseline NYHA class III–IV cardiac function, WBC count, potassium, and calcium levels.

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

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.

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.

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. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar databases, and Cochrane Library, up to 30th July 2023 for studies reporting data on all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included dialysis-related infectious and mechanical complications. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Nine eligible studies involving 941 PD and 779 HD patients were analyzed. Pooled analysis demonstrated elevated risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.09), dialysis-related infectious complications (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.07), and mechanical complications (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.13) in patients undergoing urgent-start HD than in patients on urgent-start PD. Our findings indicate that CKD patients that received urgent-start HD are at increased risk of all-cause mortality and infectious, and mechanical complications that are associated with the dialysis than patients that received urgent-start PD. These findings have to be considered when making treatment decisions for patients with acute kidney injury. Better understanding of the mechanism of these differences may help to create guidelines for more informed clinical practices.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: Current State and Future Directions

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) is defined as peritoneal dialysis initiated within 14 days of catheter insertion. In this review, the authors describe the most recent data on USPD, including outcomes, complications, barriers to implementation, and areas for future research. Outcomes appear similar between catheter insertion techniques, so patient factors and institutional workflow should guide practice. Mechanical complications may occur at a higher rate in USPD, but it does not impact technique survival or mortality. Infectious complications appear unchanged in USPD, and there may be fewer complications compared to urgent-start hemodialysis. Barriers to implementation are multifactorial, including physician and staff unfamiliarity and lack of institutional support. A significant limitation within the field includes lack of uniform terminology and definitions.

Urgent Start Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) as a Safe and Effective Dialysis Modality to Reduce the Dropout of Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis

Urgent Start Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) as a Safe and Effective Dialysis Modality to Reduce the Dropout of Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD): A Literature Review

Peritoneal dialysis can be a treatment for kidney replacement therapy, and the lining of the abdomen can be used as the filter for dialysis. The dialysate is inserted into the abdomen through a peritoneal dialysis catheter. Conventionally, people would wait two weeks after getting a catheter insertion before starting dialysis. This period was to give enough time for the wound to heal correctly. But some studies found that chronic kidney disease patients who need to begin dialysis immediately after having a catheter insert (urgent-start peritoneal dialysis) had similar results to those who started dialysis more than two weeks after inserting the catheter (conventional-start peritoneal dialysis). Peritoneal dialysis is a significant method of kidney replacement therapy. Most patients who need dialysis right away are given hemodialysis instead of peritoneal dialysis, which means that peritoneal dialysis is not used as much as it could be. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis is an effective and cost-effective option instead of starting conventional dialysis. There is not enough evidence to help guide the treatment, but involvement of the knowledge with this technique is required. This article overviews why urgent-start peritoneal dialysis is important and how it can be used in practice.

Urgent Implantation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Kidney Injury-A Review.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and sudden exacerbation of chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently necessitate urgent kidney replacement therapy (UKRT). Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is recognized as a viable modality for managing such patients. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) may be associated with an increased number of complications and is rarely utilized. This review examines recent literature investigating the clinical outcomes of USPD in CKD and AKI. Relevant research was identified through searches of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Included studies focused on the emergency use of peritoneal dialysis in CKD or AKI and reported treatment outcomes. While no official recommendations exist for catheter implantation in USPD, the impact of the technique itself on outcomes was found to be less significant compared with the post-implantation factors. USPD represents a safe and effective treatment modality for AKI, although complications such as catheter malfunctions, leakage, and peritonitis were observed. Furthermore, USPD demonstrated efficacy in managing CKD, although it was associated with a higher incidence of complications compared to conventional-start peritoneal dialysis. Despite its cost-effectiveness, PD requires greater technical expertise from medical professionals. Close supervision and pre-planning for catheter insertion are essential for CKD patients. Whenever feasible, an urgent start should be avoided. Nevertheless, in emergency scenarios, USPD does remain a safe and efficient approach.

A randomized controlled comparative study of different fluid exchange modes in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease: automated peritoneal dialysis combined with manual fluid exchange vs. manual fluid exchange alone

During urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, both adequate dialysis and skill training for fluid exchange are essential. However, automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) alone or manual fluid exchange peritoneal dialysis (MPD) alone could meet the above demands. Therefore, our study combined APD with MPD (A-MPD), and compared A-MPD with MPD, aiming to find the most appropriate treatment mode. This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. All eligible patients were randomized into the MPD and A-MPD groups. All patients underwent a five-day USPD treatment 48 h after catheter implantation, and they were followed up for six months after discharge. Overall, 74 patients were enrolled in this study. Among these, 14 and 60 patients quit due to complications during USPD and completed the study (A-MPD = 31, MPD = 29), respectively. Compared with MPD, the A-MPD treatment mode had a better effect on removing serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and potassium and improving serum carbon dioxide combining power levels; it had less time expenditure on the fluid exchange by nurses (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the A-MPD group had higher scores on the skill tests than those in the MPD group (p = 0.002). However, no significant differences in short-term peritoneal dialysis (PD) complications, PD technical survival rate, or mortality were found between the two groups. Therefore, the A-MPD mode could be recommended as an adoptable and suitable PD modality for USPD in the future.

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: Brazilian Experience

Introduction: Unplanned peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important option for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients requiring kidney replacement therapy urgently as it offers the convenience of home-based therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the Brazilian urgent-start PD program in three different dialysis centers where there is shortage of hemodialysis (HD) beds. Methods: This prospective, multicentric cohort study included incident patients with stage 5 CKD and no permanent vascular access established who started urgent PD between July 2014 and July 2020 in three different hospitals. Urgent-start PD was defined as initiation of treatment up to 72 h after catheter placement. Patients were followed up from catheter insertion and assessed according to mechanical and infectious complications related to PD, patients, and technique survival. Results: Over 6 years, 370 patients were included in all three study centers. Mean patient age was 57.8 ± 16.32 years. Diabetic kidney disease was the main underlying condition (35.1%) and uremia was the main cause for dialysis indication (81.1%). Concerning complications related to PD, 24.3% had mechanical complications, 27.3% had peritonitis, 28.01% had technique failure, and 17.8% died. On logistic regression, hospitalization (p = 0.003) and exit site infection (p = 0.002) were identified as predictors of peritonitis, while mechanical complications (p = 0.004) and peritonitis (p < 0.001) were identified as predictors of technique failure and switching to HD. Age (p < 0.001), hospitalization (p = 0.012), and bacteremia (p = 0.021) were observed to predict death. The number of patients on PD increased at least 140% in all three participating centers. Conclusion: PD is a feasible option for patients starting dialysis in an unplanned manner and may be a useful tool for reducing shortage of HD beds.

Hybrid Method for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: A New Technique for Improved Outcomes and Reduced Costs

Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a well-established treatment choice for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). While there are several methods for PD catheter insertion, they each have limitations. In this study, we present a new hybrid method for PD catheter insertion and compare it to the conventional laparoscopic method. Methods: This retrospective study included 171 patients who were undergoing their first PD catheter insertion, and a total of 20% of the enrolled patients had a past medical history of abdominal surgery. Out of these, 101 patients underwent the laparoscopic method and 70 underwent a new invented hybrid method. The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, incidence of early and late complications, hospital stay, and medical expenses between the two groups. Results: There were no notable differences in basic demographic features and comorbid conditions between the two groups. The results of our data revealed that the hybrid group had a significantly shorter break-in period and did not require temporary hemodialysis. Additionally, length of hospital stay and medical costs were significantly lower in the hybrid group (all p < 0.05). The incidence of early complications was lower in the hybrid group, while the incidence of late complications was comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the hybrid method of PD catheter insertion provides a safe and efficient alternative to the traditional laparoscopic method, enabling urgent-start PD and reducing hospital stays and medical expenses. Our findings support the use of the hybrid method as a new standard of care for ESKD patients undergoing PD catheter insertion.

Nephrologists’ Perspectives on Home Dialysis Utilization: A National Survey From Israel

Nephrologists’ Perspectives on Home Dialysis Utilization: A National Survey From Israel

Infectious and mechanical complications in planned-start vs. urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: a cohort study.

Few studies have compared the infectious and mechanical complications seen in planned-start and urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. To compare the incidence and etiology of mechanical and infectious complications in patients offered planned- and urgent-start PD and assess potential differences in patient survival and time on PD. This retrospective cohort study included patients with chronic kidney disease on planned- and urgent-start PD seen from 2014 to 2020 and compared them for mechanical and infectious complications, clinical outcome, death rates, and need to switch to hemodialysis. Ninety-nine patients on planned-start PD and 206 on urgent-start PD were included. Incidence of exit-site infection (18.9 vs. 17.17%, p=0.71) and peritonitis (24.27 vs. 27.27%, p=0.57) were similar between patients, while pathogens causing peritonitis were different, although non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli were more commonly seen in the planned-start PD group. Leakage as a mechanical complication and hospitalization were more common among patients needing urgent-start PD (10.68 vs. 2.02%, p=0.0085 and 35.44 vs. 17.17%, p=0.0011, respectively). Patient survival was similar between groups. Cox regression found an association between death and age (HR=1.051, 95% CI 1.026-1.07, p=0.0001) and albumin (HR=0.66, 95% CI 0.501-0.893, p=0.0064), and between peritonitis and a diagnosis of diabetes (HR=2.016, 95% CI 1.25-3.25, p=0.004). Patient survival and time on PD were similar between the planned- and urgent-start PD groups, while leakage was more frequently seen in the urgent-start PD group. Death was associated with lower albumin levels and older age, while peritonitis was associated with diabetes.

Infectious and mechanical complications in planned-start vs. urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: a cohort study

Resumo Antecedentes: Poucos estudos compararam as complicações infecciosas e mecânicas relacionadas à diálise peritoneal (DP) de início planejado e não planejado. Objetivos: Comparar a incidência e etiologia das complicações mecânicas e infecciosas associadas à DP tanto de início planejado quanto não planejado e avaliar comparativamente a sobrevida da técnica e dos pacientes. Métodos: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo que avaliou pacientes com doença renal crônica em DP não planejada e planejada de 2014 a 2020 quanto às complicações mecânicas e infecciosas e desfechos clínicos óbito ou mudança para hemodiálise. Resultados: Foram avaliados 99 pacientes em DP planejada e 206 em DP não planejada. Foram semelhantes quanto à incidência de Infecção do Orifício de Saída (18,9x17,17%, p=0,71), peritonite (24,27x27,27%, p=0,57) e diferentes quanto aos agentes etiológicos das peritonites, sendo os bacilos Gram-negativos não fermentadores mais frequentes no grupo planejado. Diferiram quanto à complicação mecânica extravasamento e internação, ambas mais frequentes no grupo não planejado (10,68 x 2,02%, p=0,0085 e 35,44 x 17,17%, p=0,0011, respectivamente). Semelhantes quanto à sobrevida dos pacientes e da técnica. À regressão de Cox, associou ao óbito a idade (HR=1,051, IC 95% 1,026-1,07, p=0,0001) e a albumina (HR=0,66, IC 95% 0,501-0,893, p=0,0064), e à peritonite a presença de diabetes (HR=2,016, IC 95% 1,25-3,25, p=0,004). Conclusão: A sobrevida da técnica e dos pacientes foi semelhante nos grupos DP planejada e não planejada, enquanto o extravasamento foi mais frequente no grupo de início não planejado. Associaram-se ao óbito menores valores de albumina e maior idade, e à peritonite, o diabetes.

Urgent vs. planned peritoneal dialysis initiation: complications and outcomes in the first year of therapy.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (US-PD) has been proposed as a safe modality of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with an indication for emergency dialysis initiation. We aimed to compare the characteristics, 30-day complications, and clinical outcomes of US-PD and planned peritoneal dialysis (Plan-PD) patients over the first year of therapy. This was a single-center retrospective study that included incident adult patients followed for up to one year. US-PD was considered when incident patients started therapy within 7 days after Tenckhoff catheter implantation. Plan-PD group consisted of patients who started therapy after the breaking period (15 days). Mechanical and infectious complications were compared 30 days from PD initiation. Hospitalization and technique failure during the first 12 months on PD were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and the determinants were calculated by Cox regression models. All patients starting PD between October/2016 and November/2019 who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analyzed. We evaluated 137 patients (70 in the US-PD x 67 Plan-PD). The main complications in the first 30 days were catheter tip migration (7.5% Plan-PD x 4.3% US-PD - p= 0.49) and leakage (4.5% Plan-PD x 5.7% US-PD - p=0.74). Most catheters were placed using the Seldinger technique. The main cause of dropout was death in US-PD patients (15.7%) and transfer to HD in Plan-PD patients (13.4%). The occurrence of complications in the first 30 days was the only risk factor for dropout (OR = 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.03). Hospitalization rates and technique survival were similar in both groups. The lack of significant differences in patients' outcomes between groups reinforces that PD is a safe and applicable dialysis method in patients who need immediate dialysis.

Early and Late Patient Outcomes in Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: A Prospective Study of Unplanned Initiation of Chronic Dialysis.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has become a well-established complementary alternative to hemodialysis (HD) as the first-line renal replacement modality. Unlike the temporary catheter for hemodialysis that can be used immediately after implementation, the PD catheter usage period remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes in patients under peritoneal dialysis according to the delay of starting the dialysis after catheter placement. This observational prospective study was conducted over an eight-year and four-month period (from April 2014 to August 2021), including all patients treated with peritoneal dialysis for 18 months (from April 2014 to October 2015). The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the catheter was used during the first 15 days (PD-E) or 15 days after (PD-L) catheter placement. The primary outcomes were early complications (mechanical and infectious) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included technique survival. Among the 36 patients included in the study, 14 started PD early (38.8%), while 22 started it 15 days after catheter placement (61.2%). The mean age between the two groups was not significantly different (41 ± 17 years vs 35 ± 16 years, p: not significant). There were no significant differences in the Charlson comorbidity index or the degree of autonomy. The incidence of infections was not significantly different between the two groups (13.6% in PD-L vs 21.4% in PD-E, p: not significant). The total number of mechanical complications was not significantly higher in the PD-E group compared to the PD-L group (42.8% vs 27.3%, respectively, p: not significant). Kaplan-Meier estimates of technique survival were comparable between the groups (log Rank: 1.908, p: 0.67). Our study showed no increase in the risk of complications associated with early use of the PD catheter and no difference in technique survival. PD can be used as first-line renal replacement therapy in the unplanned initiation of chronic dialysis.

The efficacy and safety of an improved percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter placement technique in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis has high catheterization skill requirements and that early complications. The optimal catheter placement method remains debatable in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis patients. Safe and effective peritoneal dialysis catheterization is needed in clinical work. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 34 patients diagnosed with end-stage renal disease who opt for peritoneal dialysis, 19 males and 15 females, with an average age of 62.3±14.7 years, peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation was completed by the improved percutaneous catheterization technique. They were followed for 6 months, early and late complications were observed and the survival rate of the catheter technique was calculated. All 34 patients diagnosed with end-stage renal disease successfully underwent catheter placement using the improved percutaneous technique; the catheterization success rate was 100%. No severe organ injuries, such as intestinal perforation and bladder perforation, occurred intraoperatively. Peritoneal dialysis was started immediately after surgery. The early complications included one case of leakage, one case of omental wrapping, and six cases of rectus abdominis hemorrhage. The late complications included one case of pleuro-abdominal fistula and two cases of peritonitis. The 6-month technical survival rate for the catheter was 94.1% (32/34). Compared to previously reported studies, this technique may reduce leakage and early catheter dysfunction, and improve the technical survival of catheters. The improved percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter placement technique might be an effective and safe method for urgent‑start peritoneal dialysis patients.

Evaluation of complications in urgent start peritoneal dialysis: Single-center experience.

Patients who were urgent start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) were evaluated in terms of complications. The data from 102 patients (43 males and 59 females, mean age 58.18± 15.3 years) who were on peritoneal dialysis with a placed catheter between January 2014 and June 2019 in our Nephrology clinic was evaluated. The patients were divided into three groups according to the starting time of peritoneal dialysis. The development of complications between the groups (peritonitis, leakage, hernia), hemodialysis return time and overall survival times were compared. There was no difference between the groups in terms of survival and complications. Diabetes, advanced age, albumin values were found to be risk factors for mortality, while no differences were found between the groups in terms of complications and mortality. USPD can be recommended for both because it provides a permanent dialysis option and because it leads to fewer complications than urgent start HD.

Break-in Period ≤24 Hours as an Option for Urgent-start Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients With Diabetes.

BackgroundThe optimal break-in period (BI) of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) initiation for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and diabetes is unclear. We aimed to explore the safety and applicability of a BI ≤24 h in patients with ESRD and diabetes.MethodsWe used a retrospective cohort design wherein we recruited patients with ESRD and diabetes who underwent USPD at five institutions in China between January 2013 and August 2020. The enrolled patients were grouped according to BI. The primary outcomes were mechanical and infectious complication occurrences, whereas the secondary outcome was technique survival.ResultsWe enrolled 310 patients with diabetes, of whom 155 and 155 patients were in the BI ≤24 h and BI >24 h groups, respectively. The two groups showed a comparable incidence of infectious and mechanical complications within 6 months after catheter insertion (p>0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for mechanical or infectious complications. Kaplan–Meier estimates showed no statistically significant between-group differences in technique survival rates (p>0.05). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that a BI ≤24 h was not an independent risk factor for technique failure.ConclusionUSPD initiation with a BI ≤24 h may be safe and feasible for patients with ESRD and diabetes.

Automated peritoneal dialysis as a cost-effective urgent-start dialysis option for ESRD patients: A prospective cohort study.

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. 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. 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. 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.