Educational interventions and identification of risk factors to prevent and reduce peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is a common and serious complication of peritoneal dialysis and is one of the main causes of peritoneal dialysis technique failure and long-term hemodialysis conversion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the review was to identify and clarify peritonitis risk factors and learn about strategies employed at international level to prevent and reduce the occurrence of peritoneal dialysis associated infections and their complications. DESIGN: A scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in pertitoneal dialysis. MEASUREMENTS: The methodology framework of Arksey and O'Malley and PRISMA for Scoping Reviews guidelines were applied. A search was conducted of PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL using terms to identify peritoneal dialysis -associated risk factors and interventions carried out for the prevention and reduction of peritonitis in adult persons living at home. RESULTS: The 17 studies selected were based on work carried out in nine different countries. Eleven articles analysed modifiable risk factors (low educational level, being a foreigner and low adherence to aseptic technique) and non-modifiable risk factors (age and comorbidities) that predispose to peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis. The other six studies applied an intervention to improve the prevalence of peritonitis considering educational practices adapted to patient characteristics and the application of retraining. CONCLUSIONS: Personalised patient training and the identification of risk factors for peritonitis are key to reducing complications and enhancing the survival of peritoneal dialysis patients and the effectiveness of the technique.

¿Es el paciente inmigrante un buen candidato para diálisis peritoneal? / Does the immigrant patient is a good candidate for peritoneal dialysis?

Introducción: El paciente inmigrante a veces presenta barreras que provocan dudas de su inclusión en diálisis peritoneal. Objetivo: Analizar si ser inmigrante influye en los resultados de la diálisis peritoneal. Material y Método: 143 pacientes incidentes en diálisis peritoneal (años 2010-17). Datos demográficos, clínicos y de pronóstico (definición pobre resultado en diálisis peritoneal: peritonitis superior a media de la unidad, transferencia a hemodiálisis en primeros 6 meses y mortalidad relacionada con la técnica). Resultados: Comparando los pacientes inmigrantes y no inmigrantes se observan diferencias: edad (42,4 vs 62,3 años; p=<0,001), numero de sesiones de entrenamiento (7,5 vs 9,27; p=0,037), sexo (61,1 vs 25,2% mujeres; p=0,002), nivel económico (44,4 vs 13,7%; p=0,005), educación (16,7 vs 1,6%; p=0,004), situación laboral (5,6 vs 61,3%; p≤0,001) y grado de autonomía (38,9 vs 13,7% actividad prácticamente normal; p=0,031). Sin diferencias respecto a los datos pronósticos. Un 25,3% de los pacientes presentan un pobre resultado en diálisis peritoneal y el resto un buen resultado. La única diferencia significativa entre ambos grupos son el número de sesiones de entrenamiento (10 sesiones vs 8,7 sesiones; p=0,048). En el análisis multivariante no se encontró asociación entre el pobre resultado de la técnica con ninguna de las variables introducidas en el modelo inicial, tan solo, se aproximó el grado de funcionalidad del paciente, aunque sin alcanzar significación estadística. Conclusiones: Los pacientes inmigrantes, a pesar de condiciones sociodemográficas distintas, tienen un resultado similar a los no inmigrantes en diálisis peritoneal

Introduction: The immigrant patient sometimes presents barriers that cause doubts about their inclusion in peritoneal dialysis. Objective: To analyse if being an immigrant influences the results of peritoneal dialysis. Material and Method: 143 incident patients in peritoneal dialysis (years 2010-17). Demographic, clinical and prognostic data (poor outcome definition in peritoneal dialysis: peritonitis greater than half of the unit, transfer to haemodialysis in the first 6 months and mortality related to the technique). Results: Comparing immigrant and non-immigrant patients, differences were observed: age (42.4 vs 62.3 years, p<0.001), number of training sessions (7.5 vs 9.27, p=0.037), sex (61.1 vs. 25.2% women, p=0.002), economic level (44.4 vs. 13.7%, p=0.005), education (16.7 vs. 1.6%, p=0.004), employment situation (5.6 vs 61.3%, p<0.001) and degree of autonomy (38.9 vs 13.7% practically normal activity, p=0.031). No differences with respect to the prognostic data. A 25.3% of patients present a poor result in peritoneal dialysis and the remaining patients a good result. Only significant differences between both groups were found in the number of training sessions (10 sessions vs 8.7 sessions, p=0.048). The only factor that tends to be associated independently (multivariate analysis) to a poor result in peritoneal dialysis is the degree of functionality of the patient. No associations were found with being an immigrant patient or with other variables. Conclusions: Immigrant patients, in spite of the different sociodemographic conditions, have a similar outcome to non-immigrant patients in peritoneal dialysis