RESUMO
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in patients on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology in peritoneal dialysis (SONG-PD) clinical outcomes. Methods: A prospective and multicenter cohort study was conducted on patients with advanced chronic kidney disease on APD, recruited at 16 Spanish Hospitals, between June 1 and December 31, 2021. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, namely patients on APD with RPM (APD-RPM) and patients on APD without RPM. The primary endpoints were the standardized outcomes of the SONG-PD clinical outcomes: PD-associated infection, cardiovascular disease (CVD), mortality rate, technique survival, and life participation (assessed as health-related quality of life [QoL]). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to evaluate the association of RPM exposure with the clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 232 patients were included, 176 (75.9%) in the APD-RPM group and 56 (24.1%) in the APD-without-RPM group. The mean patient follow-up time was significantly longer in the APD-RPM group than in the APD-without-RPM group (10.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.4 ± 3.1 months, respectively; P = 0.02). In the overall study sample, the APD-RPM group was associated with a lower mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01 to 0.69; P = 0.020) and greater technique survival rate (HR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.59; P = 0.001). After PSM, APD-RPM continued to be associated with better technique survival (HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.83; P = 0.024). Conclusion: The use of RPM programs in patients on APD was associated with better survival of the technique and lower mortality rates. However, after PSM, only technique survival was significant.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Anaemia is common in haemodialysis patients and treating it with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) is complex due to many factors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of the Anaemia Control Model (ACM) in the treatment of anaemia in haemodialysis. METHODS: ACM is a software that predicts the optimal dose of darbepoetin and iron sucrose to achieve target haemoglobin (Hb) and ferritin levels, and makes prescription suggestions. Study conducted in dialysis clinics lasting 18months with two intervention phases (IPs) with ACM (IP1, n:213; IP2, n:218) separated by a control phase (CP, n:219). The primary outcome was the percentage of Hb in range and the median dose of ESAs, and the secondary outcomes were transfusion, hospitalisation and cardiovascular events. Clinical and patient analyses were performed. Hb variability was assessed by the standard deviation (SD) of the Hb. We also analysed the patients with most of the suggestions confirmed (ACM compliant group). RESULTS: ACM increased the percentage of Hb in range: 80.9% in IP2, compared with 72.7% in the CP and reduced the intake of darbepoetin (IP1: 20 [70]; CP 30 [80] µg P=0.032) with less Hb fluctuation (0.91±0.49 in the CP to 0.82±0.37g/dl in IP2, P<0.05), improving in the ACM compliant group. The secondary outcomes decreased with the use of ACM. CONCLUSIONS: ACM helps to obtain better anaemia results in haemodialysis patients, minimising the risks of treatment with ESAs and reducing costs.