Rapid point-of-care test for diagnosis of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Periplex® is a rapid point-of-care test based on the detection of interleukin-6 (IL-6) or matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) to diagnose peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. METHODS: This single-centre study was conducted in Singapore General Hospital from 2019 to 2022. The study recruited PD patients suspected of having peritonitis. Periplex was performed at the presentation and recovery of peritonitis. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of Periplex at presentation. The positive and negative predictive values of tests were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 60.9 ± 14.9 years, 53% were male, 79% were Chinese and 47.5% had diabetes mellitus. Periplex was positive in all patients with peritonitis (n = 114); sensitivity of 100%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 100-100%. Periplex was falsely positive in three patients with non-infective eosinophilic peritonitis, resulting in a low specificity of 50%; 95% CI: 41.1-59.0%. Periplex had a positive predictive value of 97.4% and a negative predictive value of 100%. During recovery from peritonitis, Periplex had high specificity (93.6%) and negative predictive value (98.7%) to indicate the resolution of infection. MMP-8 was more sensitive than IL-6 in detecting peritonitis. Periplex was positive in all patients with peritonitis regardless of the types of PD solutions used. CONCLUSIONS: Periplex had high sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values in the diagnosis of peritonitis can be considered as a screening tool for peritonitis. Given its high specificity and negative predictive value, it may also be used to document the resolution of peritonitis.

Exploration of patients' preference for modalities of care among peritoneal dialysis patients in Singapore: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is home-based dialysis therapy and therefore a suitable modality for kidney failure patients, particularly, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study examined patients' preferences for different PD-related services. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Anonymized data from PD patients followed up at a single center in Singapore were collected using an online platform. The study focused on telehealth services, home visits, and monitoring of quality-of-life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 78 PD patients responded to the survey. The majority of participants were Chinese (76%), married (73%), and between 45 and 65 years old (45%). The in-person visit was preferred over teleconsultation for consultation with nephrologists (68% versus 32%), counseling for kidney disease and dialysis by renal coordinators (59%), whereas the telehealth service was favored over in-person visit for dietary counseling (60%) and medication counseling (64%). Most participants (81%) preferred medication delivery over self-collection, and the acceptable turnaround time was 1 week. Sixty percent would like to have a regular home visit, but 23% refused such visits. The preferred frequency of home visits was one-to-three visits within the first 6 months (74%) and then 6 monthly for subsequent visits (40%). The majority of participants (87%) agreed with QoL monitoring, and the preferred frequency of monitoring varied between 6 monthly (45%) and yearly (40%). Participants also indicated three key areas in research to improve QoL, such as the development of artificial kidneys, portable PD devices, and simplification of PD procedure. Participants also would like to see improvement in two main areas of PD services, such as delivery service for PD solutions and social (instrumental, informational, and emotional) support. CONCLUSIONS: Most PD patients preferred in-person visits with nephrologists or renal coordinators; however, they favored telehealth services with dieticians and pharmacists. PD patients also welcomed home visit service and QoL monitoring. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Clinical features, management and outcomes of peritoneal dialysis patients during Delta and Omicron waves of COVID-19 infections.

INTRODUCTION: There were discrete outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2021 (Delta wave) and 2022 (Omicron wave) in Singapore, which affected patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). METHODS: This study included all PD patients with COVID-19 infection from a single center between October 2021 and March 2022. The clinical presentation, management and outcomes of patients during the Delta and Omicron outbreaks were compared. RESULTS: A total of 44 PD patients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection (23 during the Delta wave and 21 during the Omicron wave): median age 66 (60.5-68.5) years, male (63.6%), Chinese ethnic (77.3%), diabetes mellitus (56.8%), and cardiovascular disease (45.5%). Approximately, 93.2% received two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Cough (81.8%) and fever (54.5%) were common presenting symptoms. Chest radiography showed ground glass opacity in 23.5% of patients, consolidation in 55.6%, and bilateral lung involvement in 33.3%. Eleven patients (25.6%) received antiviral therapy (Remdesivir), 7 (16.3%) received steroid, and 4 (9.3%) received monoclonal antibodies. Patients infected during the Delta wave were more likely to be hospitalized (73.9 vs 14.3%; p < 0.001) and receive antiviral therapy (39.1 vs 10.0%; p = 0.03) than those during the Omicron wave. The overall mortality rate was 11.4%, with significantly higher mortality during the Delta wave than during the Omicron wave (21.7 vs 0%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate was high among infected PD patients during Delta wave of COVID-19 infection. However, during the Omicron wave, most infected patients were treated in the community with favorable outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccination in peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine is recommended in Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, but a paucity of data is available regarding vaccine-related adverse effects among PD patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a single center between October and November 2021. PD patients were provided with the online survey link to participate in the study. RESULTS: A total of 107 PD patients responded to the survey (55%: male, 79%: Chinese, 40%: > 65 years old). Of these, 95% received the COVID-19 vaccine (77% received two doses and 22% received three doses). Most participants (91%) received Pfizer vaccine. The main source of vaccine information was from the government (48%). The most common reason to receive and refuse vaccines were the perception of the seriousness of COVID-19 infection (63%) and concern about vaccine safety (60%), respectively. After the first dose, 25% of patients developed one or more vaccine-related adverse effects. Common local adverse effect was pain at the injection site (21%), and systemic adverse effects were muscle pain (15%), fatigue (13%). Similar adverse effects were observed with subsequent doses. None of them required hospitalization for vaccine-related adverse effects. Female patients had a higher risk of developing adverse effects than male patients after the first dose (odds ratio: 3.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 - 9.08). No such difference was observed in the subsequent dose. Age, race, employment status and history of drug allergy were not associated with the risk of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 vaccine was well-tolerated by most PD patients, but few experienced non-severe adverse effects. All PD patients should be vaccinated against SAR-COV-2 infection.

Comparison of outcomes of urgent-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease to avoid central venous catheter use and its complications. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between urgent-start PD (defined as PD commencement within 2 weeks of PD catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2017 and February 2018. The primary outcome was dialysate leak. Secondary outcomes included catheter malfunction, catheter readjustment, exit-site infection, peritonitis, technique and patient survival. RESULTS: A total of 187 incident PD patients were included. Of these, 66 (35%) initiated urgent-start PD. Dialysate leak was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD groups (7.6% versus 0.8%; p = 0.02) whilst catheter malfunction (4.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.70) and catheter readjustment (1.5% vs. 2.5%; p = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups. Exit-site infection was comparable (IRR: 0.66 95% CI 0.25-1.74) whilst peritonitis was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-7.44). Time to first episode of peritonitis, particularly Gram-positive peritonitis was significantly shorter with urgent-start PD. Technique survival (hazards ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% CI 0.89-4.31) and patient survival (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.44-4.87) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Urgent-start PD was associated with higher risks of dialysate leak and peritonitis but comparable technique and patient survival compared to conventional-start PD.

Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressing for prevention of catheter exit-site infection in peritoneal dialysis patients: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to examine effect of chlorhexidine dressing in the prevention of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection in PD patients. METHODS: This single-center pilot study recruited 50 incident PD patients to use weekly chlorhexidine dressing. The primary outcome was exit-site/tunnel infection rate. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, time to first PD-related infection, infection-related hospitalization, technique and patient survival, adverse events, and chlorhexidine dressing acceptability. These clinical outcomes were compared with those of a historical cohort (2016-2017) using daily gentamicin cream. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were recruited to use chlorhexidine and followed up for one year. The exit-site/tunnel infection rate was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.22) and peritonitis rate was 0.07 (95% CI 0.01-0.19) episodes per patient-year with chlorhexidine dressing. The 1-year infection-free survival rates for exit-site/tunnel infection and peritonitis were 92% and 94%, respectively. The 1-year technique and patient survival rates were 86% and 96%, respectively. Overall, 12% of participants developed localized contact dermatitis with chlorhexidine. Most participants (73%) reported that chlorhexidine dressings were very acceptable. Compared to a historical cohort using gentamicin cream (n = 238), the chlorhexidine group had similar exit-site/tunnel infection rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.22-1.92) but had lower peritonitis rates (IRR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.77), and lower PD infection-related hospitalization rates (IRR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.69) after adjusting for age, sex, race, primary kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: Weekly chlorhexidine dressing was associated with acceptable PD-related infection outcomes and was well-accepted by patients, although had a 12% rate of delayed localized contact dermatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE: The study was registered under www.clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number of NCT03406520 on 23 January 2018.

Early technique failure in peritoneal dialysis patients in a multi-ethnic Asian country.

PURPOSE: Early technique failure is a serious complication for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The study aimed to examine the incidence, causes, and risk factors associated with early technique failure.   METHODS: This retrospective study included all incident PD patients in a hospital in Singapore from 2013 to 2017. The primary outcome was early technique failure, which was defined as transfer to hemodialysis for ≥ 30 days or death, within the first year of PD initiation. Secondary outcomes were death, technique failure due to PD infection, and death-censored technique failure. RESULTS: Overall, 517 patients were included in the study. Of these, 98 patients (19.0%) developed early technique failure. The common causes of early technique failure were death (41.8%) and infection (40.8%). Peripheral vascular disease was significantly associated with a higher hazard of early technique failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-3.63] and death (HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.71-8.21), whilst glomerulonephritis as a cause of end-stage kidney disease (compared with hypertension) was associated with a lower hazard of early technique failure (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.77) and death (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.37). Male gender was associated with early technique failure due to PD infection (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.32-4.95). No specific factor was associated with death-censored early technique failure. CONCLUSION: Technique failure in the first year of PD initiation occurs in one-fifth of PD patients and is associated with peripheral vascular disease and cause of end-stage kidney disease.

Strategies for Management of Peritoneal Dialysis Patients in Singapore during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the only well-established home-based dialysis therapy in Singapore. As it is a home-based modality, PD should be considered as a preferred mode of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) for patients with kidney failure during this COVID-19 pandemic as it avoids frequent visits to hospitals and/or satellite dialysis centres. The highly infectious nature of this virus has led to the implementation of the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition orange status in Singapore since early February 2020. This paper summarises the strategies for management of several aspects of PD in Singapore during this COVID-19 pandemic, including PD catheter insertion, PD training, home visit and assisted PD, outpatient PD clinic, inpatient management of PD patients with or without COVID-19 infection, PD as KRT for COVID-19 patients with acute kidney injury, management of common complications in PD (peritonitis and fluid overload), and management of PD inventory.

Comparison of Topical Chlorhexidine and Mupirocin for the Prevention of Exit-Site Infection in Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

♦ OBJECTIVE: Prevention of exit-site infection (ESI) is of paramount importance to peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin. ♦ METHODS: This retrospective, pre-test/post-test observational study included all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital from 2012 to 2015. Patients received daily topical exit-site application of either mupirocin (2012 - 2013) or chlorhexidine (2014 - 2015) in addition to routine exit-site cleaning with 10% povidone-iodine. The primary outcome was ESI rate during the 2 time periods. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, times to first ESI and peritonitis, hospitalization rate, and infection-related catheter removal. Event rates were analyzed using Poisson regression, and infection-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analyses. ♦ RESULTS: The study included 162 patients in the mupirocin period (follow-up 141.5 patient-years) and 175 patients in the chlorhexidine period (follow-up 136.9 patient-years). Compared with mupirocin-treated patients, chlorhexidine-treated patients experienced more frequent ESIs (0.22 vs 0.12 episodes/patient-year, p = 0.048), although this was no longer statistically significant following multivariable analysis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 - 3.26, p = 0.06). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to time to first ESI (p = 0.10), peritonitis rate (p = 0.95), time to first peritonitis (p = 0.60), hospitalization rate (p = 0.21) or catheter removal rate (0.03 vs 0.04/patient-year, p = 0.56). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Topical exit-site application of chlorhexidine cream was associated with a borderline significant, higher rate of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin cream.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus on Peritoneal Dialysis: Correlation with Glycated Hemoglobin and Detection of High Incidence of Unaware Hypoglycemia.

INTRODUCTION: Glycated hemoglobin is used to assess diabetic control although its accuracy in dialysis has been questioned. How does it compare to the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60 insulin-treated diabetic patients on PD. We determined the mean interstitial glucose concentration and the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (<4 mmol/l) or hyperglycemia (>11 mmol/l). RESULTS: The correlation between HbA1c and glucose was 0.48, p < 0.0001. Three of 15 patients with HbA1c >75 mmol/mol experienced significant hypoglycemia (14-144 min per day). The patients with frequent episodes of hypoglycemia could not be differentiated from those with frequent hyperglycemia by demographics or PD prescription. CONCLUSION: HbA1c and average glucose levels measured by the CGMS are only weakly correlated. On its own, HbA1c as an indicator of glycemic control in patients with diabetes on PD appears inadequate. We suggest that the CGMS technology should be more widely adopted.

Increasing the use of biocompatible, glucose-free peritoneal dialysis solutions.

A major concern inhibiting some clinicians from embracing peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the preferred first modality of dialysis is the effects of PD solutions on the peritoneal membrane. These anatomical and functional changes predispose to complications like peritonitis, encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis and ultrafiltration failure. In recent years, "biocompatible" and glucose-sparing PD regimens have been developed to minimize damage to the peritoneal membrane. Can the use of these more expensive solutions be justified on current evidence? In this review of the literature, we explore how we may individualize the prescription of biocompatible PD fluid.