Factors associated with time to first dialysis-associated peritonitis episode: Data from the Peritonitis Prevention Study (PEPS).

INTRODUCTION: Peritonitis remains a potentially serious complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatment. It is therefore important to identify risk factors in order to reduce the incidence of peritonitis. The aim of the present analysis was to identify factors associated with time to first peritonitis episode. METHODS: Incident PD patients from 57 centres in Europe participated in the prospective randomised controlled Peritonitis Prevention Study (PEPS) from 2010 to 2015. Peritonitis-free, self-care PD patients ≥18 years were randomised to a retraining or a control group and followed for 1-36 months after PD initiation. The association of biochemical, clinical and prescription data with time to first peritonitis episode was studied. RESULTS: A first peritonitis episode was experienced by 33% (223/671) of participants. Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression showed a strong association between the time-updated number of PD bags connected per 24 h (PD bags/24 h) and time to first peritonitis episode (HR 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.57), even after inclusion of PD modalities in the same model. Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the factors independently associated with time to first peritonitis episode included age (HR 1.16 per 10 years; 95% CI 1.05-1.28), PD bags/24 h (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.13-1.54), serum albumin <35 versus >35 g/L (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.06-1.82) and body weight per 10 kg (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.19). CONCLUSION: This study of incident PD patients indicates that older age, greater number of PD bags connected/24 h, higher body weight and hypoalbuminaemia are independently associated with a shorter time to first peritonitis episode.

[Peritoneal dialysis at a regional hospital in Norway]. / Peritoneal dialyse i Oppland.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, an expert group appointed by the Norwegian Social and Health Directory recommended that the proportion of patients on peritoneal dialysis should increase from 15 % to about 30 %. We wanted to investigate if treatment in our hospital was in compliance with that recommendation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patient material consisted of the total number of patients on dialysis and anonymised data collected for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis at Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer in the period 1.01.2004-31.12.2008. For patients in peritoneal dialysis we assessed patient dynamics, length of hospital stay, incidence of peritonitis, need for assistance and organisation of peritoneal dialysis activity. RESULTS: Dialysis treatment was given to 176 patients, 62 (35 %) of whom were treated by peritoneal dialysis for at least 30 days (mean treatment time 16.2 months). 17 patients were switched from hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis and nine patients from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis. Patients older than 70 years stayed in hospital 6 days longer than those younger than 70 years. 27 (44 %) of the patients acquired peritonitis in the study period and 18 (29 %) patients needed help to exchange the dialysis bag. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis in our hospital has reached the recommended level. The reason may be that all eligible patients are offered peritoneal dialysis and that the treatment chain is well organised.

Retraining for prevention of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is more common in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients nonadherent to the PD exchange protocol procedures than in compliant patients. We therefore investigated whether regular testing of PD knowledge with focus on infection prophylaxis could increase the time to first peritonitis (primary outcome) and reduce the peritonitis rate in new PD patients. METHODS: This physician-initiated, open-label, parallel group trial took place at 57 centers in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2015. New peritonitis-free PD patients were randomized using computer-generated numbers 1 month after the start of PD either to a control group (n = 331) treated according to center routines or to a retraining group (n = 340), which underwent testing of PD knowledge and skills at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after PD start, followed by retraining if the goals were not achieved. RESULTS: In all, 74% of the controls and 80% of the retraining patients discontinued the study. The groups did not differ significantly regarding cumulative incidence of first peritonitis adjusted for competing risks (kidney transplantation, transfer to hemodialysis and death; hazard ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.09) nor regarding peritonitis rate per patient year (relative risk 0.93; 95% CI 0.75-1.16). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, we were unable to demonstrate that regular, targeted testing and retraining of new PD patients increased the time to first peritonitis or reduced the rate of peritonitis, as the study comprised patients with a low risk of peritonitis, was underpowered, open to type 1 statistical error, and contamination between groups.

[Home hemodialysis as an alternative to in-center dialysis]. / Hjemmehemodialyse som alternativ til senterdialyse.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for renal disease in its final stage. The number of patients in dialysis has more than doubled over the last 10 years in Norway. The prognoses still show an increasing number of patients in need of dialysis. As haemodialysis (HD) is complicated to perform at home, peritoneal dialysis is the preferred alternative. HD is usually carried out 3 times a week at hospitals, in satellites or self-dialysis in some other institution. Home HD is rarely used in Norway, as opposed to in other Western-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We describe our first patient offered HD at home and give an overview of home HD. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Empirically, the increased dialysis time in home HD generates positive physical, mental and social effects. The potential of economic savings are considerable. Home HD is a cost-effective method to improve health and solve some of the problems associated with centre dialysis. The treatment generates great demands for equipment and training, and is suitable only for carefully selected patients. Home HD offers considerable more freedom and possibility for more frequent and longer dialysis than centre dialysis.

Controlling systolic blood pressure is difficult in patients with diabetic kidney disease exhibiting moderate-to-severe reductions in renal function.

This study compared the use of antihypertensive treatment and blood pressure (BP) controls between patients with diabetic kidney disease (DK+) and patients with non-diabetic kidney disease (DK-) exhibiting moderate-to-severe chronic renal failure who did not need renal replacement therapy. A cross-sectional survey included all renal patients with s-creatinine at ?200 micromol/l attending regular control sessions at six renal units in Norway. Of the 351 patients included, 73 (20.8%) were DK+. The proportion reaching a BP goal of <130/80 mmHg was similar in DK+ and DK- (14.1% vs 13.6%, p = 0.92), while 38% and 39% achieved a BP of <140/90 mmHg, respectively. The systolic BP goal was more difficult to achieve than the diastolic BP goal in DK+ patients (35% vs 15%) despite a mean of three different types of drugs being used. Loop diuretics and beta-adrenergic-receptor antagonists were the most frequently prescribed drugs, and the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II-receptor antagonists declined when renal function deteriorated, from 80% to 0% and from 66% to 20% in the DK+ and DK- groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Thus, despite the use of multiple antihypertensive drugs, controlling BP - especially the systolic BP - is difficult in high-risk patients with chronic renal failure caused by diabetic kidney disease.

Blood pressure control is hard to achieve in patients with chronic renal failure: results from a survey of renal units in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of antihypertensive drugs and blood pressure (BP) levels in relation to current guidelines for BP control in patients with chronic renal failure (CRF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in six renal outpatient clinics in Oslo and the surrounding area. The hospital records of all renal patients not yet in need of renal replacement therapy and with serum creatinine>or=200 micromol/l who attended consultations with nephrologists regularly (at least every third month) were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 97% had hypertension. the majority of patients (96%) were receiving antihypertensive therapy. The average number of antihypertensive drugs being taken was 2.7+/-1.3 (median 3), but it varied with the cause of CRF. The drugs most frequently prescribed as monotherapy were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists, which were used by 32%; 51% of patients were using three or more antihypertensive drugs. Loop diuretics were prescribed as monotherapy in 25% of cases and in combination with two or more other drugs in 87%. Age and serum creatinine levels influenced the choice of antihypertensive therapy. The target BP of <130/80 mmHg was obtained in 13% of patients, and lack of optimal BP control was mainly due to systolic hypertension. A total of 38% of patients had a BP of <140/90 mmHg, while 58% failed to achieve a systolic BP of <140 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Optimal blood pressure control is hard to achieve in patients with CRF, even with specialist care and the use of multiple antihypertensive drugs.

Insulin resistance after renal transplantation: the effect of steroid dose reduction and withdrawal.

Cardiovascular disease is a prevalent and serious complication after solid organ transplantation. Treatment with glucocorticoids is associated with increased risk for diabetes mellitus, insulin resistance, weight gain, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension, all shown to be independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease. We sought to test the hypothesis that tapering of prednisolone (TAP) the first year after renal transplantation improves insulin sensitivity (IS), and to assess the effect of complete steroid withdrawal (SW) on IS in patients on a cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive regimen. All patients (n = 57) completed two consecutive hyperinsulinemic euglycemic glucose clamp procedures, a TAP group (n = 34) and a control group (n = 12) at 3 and 12 mo after transplantation, and a SW group (n = 11) before and 5 mo after SW. The IS index (ISI) was calculated as the glucose disposal rate divided by mean serum insulin the last 60 min of the clamp. In the TAP group, the mean (range) daily prednisolone was reduced from 16 (10 to 30) to 9 (5 to 12.5) mg accompanied by an average increased ISI of 24% (P = 0.008). In contrast, no significant change in ISI was observed in the control group (0%, P = 0.988). In the SW group, withdrawal of 5 mg prednisolone did not influence mean ISI significantly (-8%, P = 0.206). Lowering daily prednisolone toward 5 mg/d has beneficial effects on insulin action after renal transplantation, but withdrawal of 5 mg prednisolone may not influence IS significantly.