Effect of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Therapy in Patients Receiving Palliative Care of Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) in patients receiving dialysis, few studies have examined the benefits of ESA for patients with chronic kidney disease receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVE: We designed a retrospective observational study to evaluate the effect of ESA in treating anemia of renal disease among adult patients receiving palliative care instead of dialysis. The primary objective was to assess whether ESA can reduce the transfusion burden and hospitalization. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients receiving ESA were matched with a control group of 39 patients without ESA. Their mean age and glomerular filtration rates were 76.7 (10.2) years and 11.6 (5.7) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Baseline hemoglobin levels were comparable in the ESA and control groups; their corresponding values were 10.2 (1.5) and 10.1 (1.4) g/dL. During 1-year observation period, 34 units of red cell transfusion occurred in patients receiving ESA, whereas 128 units of red cell were transfused to patients in control group. Patients in the control group had higher transfusion rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.49-5.31; P < .00001) and higher admission rates (IRR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.80-3.03; P < .000001) than the ESA group even after adjustment for comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: High disease burden of palliative care among patients with stage 4 to 5 chronic kidney disease was reflected by transfusion requirement and hospitalization rates, both of which were shown to be significantly ameliorated by ESA treatment.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Revision and Replacement by Nephrologist for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Malfunction.

BACKGROUND: Catheter malfunction is an important cause of technique failure for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, and is commonly managed by surgeons or intervention radiologists. We reviewed our experience in catheter revision or replacement by nephrologists. METHOD: We reviewed the clinical outcome and complication rate of 95 consecutive patients who had PD catheter malfunction, with catheter revision or replacement by nephrologist. RESULT: Amongst the 95 patients, 32 had catheter revision, 24 catheter replacement via the original wound, and 39 catheter replacement via a new mini-laparotomy wound. Catheter survival was 71.6% at 1 month and 48.4% at 6 months; technique survival was 88.4% at 1 month and 77.4% at 6 months. When the 3 types of procedure were analyzed separately, technique survival at 1 month was 96.8, 75.0, and 89.7%, respectively, for patients who received catheter revision, catheter replacement via the original wound, and catheter replacement via a new mini-laparotomy wound (p = 0.0002), although their catheter survival rates were not significantly different. Also, 2 patients had bleeding that required urgent surgical exploration, 2 had wound infection, and 8 had peritonitis within 4 weeks after the surgery. CONCLUSION: PD catheter revision and replacement by nephrologist has an acceptable catheter survival and a reasonable complication rate. Given that prompt intervention is an important consideration, catheter revision and replacement by nephrologist is a suitable method for the management of catheter malfunction.