Impact of Prior Abdominal Procedures on Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Outcomes: Findings From the North American Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Registry.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A history of prior abdominal procedures may influence the likelihood of referral for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. To guide clinical decision making in this population, this study examined the association between prior abdominal procedures and outcomes in patients undergoing PD catheter insertion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing their first PD catheter insertion between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2020, at 11 institutions in Canada and the United States participating in the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis North American Catheter Registry. EXPOSURE: Prior abdominal procedure(s) defined as any procedure that enters the peritoneal cavity. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was time to the first of (1) abandonment of the PD catheter or (2) interruption/termination of PD. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and procedures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cumulative incidence curves were used to describe the risk over time, and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between the exposure and primary outcome. Models for count data were used to estimate the associations between the exposure and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 855 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 31% had a history of a prior abdominal procedure and 20% experienced at least 1 PD catheter-related complication that led to the primary outcome. Prior abdominal procedures were not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84). Upper-abdominal procedures were associated with a higher adjusted hazard of the primary outcome, but there was no dose-response relationship concerning the number of procedures. There was no association between prior abdominal procedures and other secondary outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Observational study and cohort limited to a sample of patients believed to be potential candidates for PD catheter insertion. CONCLUSION: A history of prior abdominal procedure(s) does not appear to influence catheter outcomes following PD catheter insertion. Such a history should not be a contraindication to PD. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving therapy for individuals with kidney failure that can be done at home. PD requires the placement of a tube, or catheter, into the abdomen to allow the exchange of dialysis fluid during treatment. There is concern that individuals who have undergone prior abdominal procedures and are referred for a catheter might have scarring that could affect catheter function. In some institutions, they might not even be offered PD therapy as an option. In this study, we found that a history of prior abdominal procedures did not increase the risk of PD catheter complications and should not dissuade patients from choosing PD or providers from recommending it.

The Association of Intra-Abdominal Adhesions with Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Complications.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the association of intra-abdominal adhesions with the risk of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter complications. METHODS: Individuals undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion were prospectively enrolled from eight centers in Canada and the United States. Patients were grouped based on the presence of adhesions observed during catheter insertion. The primary outcome was the composite of PD never starting, termination of PD, or the need for an invasive procedure caused by flow restriction or abdominal pain. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-eight individuals were enrolled, of whom 201 (27%) had adhesions during laparoscopic PD catheter insertion. The risk of the primary outcome occurred in 35 (17%) in the adhesion group compared with 58 (10%) in the no adhesion group (adjusted HR, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 2.55) within 6 months of insertion. Lower abdominal or pelvic adhesions had an adjusted HR of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.98) compared with the no adhesion group. Invasive procedures were required in 26 (13%) and 47 (8%) of the adhesion and no adhesion groups, respectively (unadjusted HR, 1.60: 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47) within 6 months of insertion. The adjusted odds ratio for adhesions for women was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.41), for body mass index per 5 kg/m 2 was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.003 to 1.34), and for prior abdominal surgery was 8.34 (95% CI, 5.5 to 12.34). Common abnormalities found during invasive procedures included PD catheter tip migration, occlusion of the lumen with fibrin, omental wrapping, adherence to the bowel, and the development of new adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: People with intra-abdominal adhesions undergoing PD catheter insertion were at higher risk for abdominal pain or flow restriction preventing PD from starting, PD termination, or requiring an invasive procedure. However, most patients, with or without adhesions, did not experience complications, and most complications did not lead to the termination of PD therapy.

Why work together? Developing effective comanagement strategies for the care of patients with CKD.

The ever-growing population of patients with CKD has prompted an increasing emphasis on earlier identification and proactive management by primary care providers. The provision of effective CKD care will necessitate a collegial relationship between the primary care providers and nephrologists exists. In this paper, barriers to the development of this working relationship, potential solutions within existing practice patterns, and newer ideas for effective communication will be explored.

Utility of the "surprise" question to identify dialysis patients with high mortality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis patients are increasingly characterized by older age, multiple comorbidities, and shortened life expectancy. This study investigated whether the "surprise" question, "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?" identifies patients who are at high risk for early mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This prospective cohort study of 147 patients in three hemodialysis dialysis units classified patients into "yes" and "no" groups on the basis of the "surprise" question response and tracked patient status (alive or dead) at 12 mo. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and Karnofsky Performance Status score were measured. RESULTS: Initially, 34 (23%) patients were classified in the "no" group. Compared with the 113 patients in the "yes" group, the patients in the "no" group were older (72.5 +/- 12.8 versus 64.5 +/- 14.9), had a higher comorbidity score (7.1 +/- 2.3 versus 5.8 +/- 2.1), and had a lower performance status score (69.7 +/- 17.1 versus 81.6 +/- 15.8). At 12 mo, 22 (15%) patients had died; the mortality rate for the "no" group was 29.4% and for the "yes" group was 10.6%. The odds of dying within 1 yr for the patients in the "no" group were 3.5 times higher than for patients in the "yes" group, (odds ratio 3.507, 95% CI 1.356 to 9.067, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The "surprise" question is effective in identifying sicker dialysis patients who have a high risk for early mortality and should receive priority for palliative care interventions.