An analysis of the effectiveness and benefits of peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis using Nigerian made PD fluids.

Haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains the cornerstone of management of patients with renal failure in developing countries as renal transplantation is just developing in most. Although both HD and PD are cost intensive, specific advantages and disadvantages have been identified with either of them. Comparative assessment of their effectiveness, benefits and cost will assist in providing a rational basis for preference of one or the other especially in third world countries where renal replacement therapy remains unaffordable and therefore relatively inaccessible to majority of patients. We therefore conducted this prospective randomised study to compare the effectiveness, benefits, cost and complications of acute or intermittent PD (IPD) and HD using locally manufactured PD fluids. Two groups of twenty patients with renal failure matched for age and clinical diagnosis were managed with IPD and HD and the effectiveness, costs and complications of both modalities compared. We found that both were comparably effective in the control of uraemia with significant reductions in the serum urea, creatinine and potassium from 29.2 +/- 7.2 mmol/L, 1693.7 +/- 580.5micromol/L and 4.8 +/- 1.2 mmol/L to 13.2 +/- 4.6 mmol/L, 796.0 +/- 458.0micromol/ L and 3.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/L respectively for IPD (P<0.05) and 34.4 +/- 9.0mmol/L, 1536.0 +/- 832.5 micromol/L and4.8 +/- 1.3 mmoV L to 14.6 +/- 7.5 mmol/L, 830.0 +/- 570.7 micromol/L and 3.9 +/- 0.8 mmol/L respectively for HD (P<0.05). In addition, there were significant improvements in serum bicarbonate in both groups. There was no significant difference in percentage reduction in serum urea, creatinine and serum potassium in both groups (P>0.05). However, HD managed patients required more blood transfusion (P<0.05). There were also comparably significant reductiohs in systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressures in both groups (P<0.05). The costs of dialysis as well as the total cost of hospitalization were found to be significantly lower in patients managed with IPD (P<0.05). The commonest complication observed in patients managed with IPD was peritonitis while in patients managed with HD it was dialysis-induced hypotension. The clinical outcome was equally good in all the ARF patients as all of them recovered irrespective of the treatment modality; CRF patients did not fare as well with 37.5% mortality observed. We conclude that IPD and HD are effective renal replacement therapies with the former being significantly cheaper. IPD should be encouraged in our patients with ARF or acute exacerbation of chronic renal failure.

Comparative study on two kidney graft rinsing and preservation solutions in terms of the post-transplantation risk of delayed graft function and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Belzer solution (Viaspan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Brussels, Belgium), which is more expensive than Eurocollins solution, was better at preventing delayed graft function (DGF) and whether it was cost-effective as it could potentially reduce post-transplantation complications. METHOD: The risk of occurrence of complications associated with the use of these two rinsing and preserving solutions was estimated from a survey of 106 patients undergoing renal transplantation between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1998. Both efficacy and adverse outcomes were recorded along with the costs directly associated with the transplantation procedure in the hospital setting: hospitalization, rinsing and preserving solutions, medical and technical interventions and diagnostic tests. RESULTS: For the 45 kidney grafts rinsed and preserved with Eurocollins (strategy S1: n1 = 45) the cost/graft was estimated at 40 euros. With Viaspan (strategy S2: n2 = 61) the corresponding cost/graft was 424 euros. Logistic regression analysis showed that Viaspan was better than Eurocollins solution (ebeta = 0.437; P = 0.05) in preventing DGF. Overall, S2 was less expensive than S1, from the hospital's perspective. The mean difference per patient was 278 euros, which amounts to a saving of 2% of the total cost per renal transplantation. For rinsing and preserving kidney grafts Belzer solution is therefore preferable to Eurocollins solution.

[Functional and economic impact of the use of Wisconsin University conservation solution versus Eurocollins in relation to the period of cold ischemia in renal transplantation of cadaveric donor]. / Impacto funcional y económico de la utilización de la solución de conservación de la Universidad de Wisconsis frente Eurocollins en relación al tiempo de isquemia fría en trasplante renal de donante cadáver.

Comparison of the effect of the Wisconsin University (WU) conservation solution in the graft's functional evolution and survival, and its cost-benefit relationship versus the Eurocollins (EC) solution with regard to cold ischaemia duration in a series of 142 consecutive adults renal transplantations from corpse donor, removed with beating heart. Of 142 kidneys, 92 (64.7%) were kept in WU and 50 (35.2%) in EC. Of the WU group, 62 (67.3%) kidneys were transplanted after a cold ischaemia of under 24 hours and 30 (32.6%) after cold ischaemia of more than 24 hours. In the EC group, 23 (46%) were kept in cold ischaemia for an interval shorter than or equal to 24 hours and 27 (54%) for more than 24 hours. Incidence of initial graft dysfunction (IGD) was greater in the EC groups (65% and 78%) versus the WU groups (39% and 50%), the difference being statistically significant (p). The graft function, as indicated by the creatinine levels was always better in the WU groups. There was a decreased need for complementary dialysis sessions, less days of oliguria and shorter hospitalization in the WU groups (p). There were no significant differences in the four series with regard to rejection episodes, cyclosporin-related nephrotoxicity, and vascular and urinary tract complications. All of which turn cost-effective the higher cost per litre of the WU versus the EC solution. Graft survival at 12 and 24 months was also significantly (p) higher for grafts kept in WU. This paper presents the results obtained in the analysis of our transplanted patients. In our experience, the WU solution allows better conservation of renal grafts, with less IGD and better graft survival at 12 and 24 months. These results turn cost-effective the higher cost per litre of the WU versus the EC solution.

The cost-effectiveness of preservation with UW and EC solution for use in cadaveric kidney transplantation in the case of single kidney donors.

University of Wisconsin (UW) solution is now commonly used as a single-flush solution during multiorgan procurement for effective preservation of all intraabdominal organs including the kidney. Many kidneys from single kidney donors are still preserved in Eurocollins solution and the question is whether preservation in UW solution is more cost-effective. A European randomized multicenter trial was organized by the Department of Surgery of Leiden University in close cooperation with Eurotransplant to study the efficacy of UW solution as compared with EC solution. On the basis of this trial we found that at three months after transplant 92.4% of the patients in the UW group had a functioning graft in comparison with 88.4% in the EC group (similar figures after one year were 88.2% and 82.5%, P approximately 0.04), while health care expenditure during these first three months was on average US$ 700 lower for the UW group than for the EC group, taking into account the price difference in the preservation fluids. The long-term benefits of using UW solution as compared with EC solution were conservatively estimated at US$ 7000 per patient reflecting the additional expenses for dialysis in the EC group. We concluded that the extra costs of using UW solution instead of EC solution (US$ 230 per kidney) can be easily earned back within three months and that the long-term savings of such a strategy are considerable. Moreover, the health status of patients in the UW group is expected to be better on the average than in the EC group. Simply reacting to the price tag of the UW solution may be penny-wise but pound-foolish.