[Approach to quality objectives in incidents of patients in peritoneal dialysis]. / Cumplimiento de objetivos de calidad y evolución de los pacientes incidentes en diálisis peritoneal.

INTRODUCTION: In 2007 the Scientific Quality-technical and Improvement of Quality in Peritoneal Dialysis was edited. It includes several quality indicators. As far as we know, only some groups of work had evaluated these indicators, with inconclusive results. AIM: To study the evolution and impact of guidelines in Peritoneal Dialysis. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of each incident of patients in Peritoneal Dialysis, in a regional public health care system (2003-2006). We prospectively collected baseline clinical and analytical data, technical efficacy, cardiovascular risk, events and deaths, hospital admissions and also prescription data was collected every 6 months. RESULTS: Over a period of 3 years, 490 patients (53.58 years of age; 61.6% males.) Causes of ERC: glomerular 25.5%, diabetes 16%, vascular 12.4%, and interstitial 13.3%. 26.48% were on the list for transplant. Dialysis efficacy: Of the first available results, the residual renal function was 6.37 ml/min, achieving 67.6% of all the objectives K/DOQI. 38.6% remained within the range during the entire first year. Anaemia: 79.3% received erythropoietic stimulating agents and maintained an average Hb of 12.1 g/dl. The percentage of patients in the range (Hb: 11-13 g/dl) improved after a year (58.4% vs 56.3% keeping in the range during this time of 25.6%). Evolution: it has been estimated that per patient-year the risk of: 1) mortality is 0.06 IC 95% [0.04-0.08]; 2) admissions 0.65 [0.58-0.72]; 3) peritoneal infections 0.5 [0.44-0.56]. CONCLUSION: Diabetes Mellitus patients had a higher cardiovascular risk and prevalence of events. The degrees of control during the follow-up in many topics of peritoneal dialysis improve each year; however they are far from the recommended guidelines, especially if they are evaluated throughout the whole study.

[Patients on peritoneal dialysis with type 2 diabetes present poorer progress than non-diabetics at the expense of their cardiovascular comorbidity]. / Los pacientes diabéticos tipo 2 presentan peor evolución que los no diabéticos en diálisis peritoneal a expensas de su comorbilidad cardiovascular.

AIM: To describe the characteristics, practice patterns, targets and outcome of the Type 2 diabetic patients (DM 2) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and to compare them with non-diabetic ones. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of every incident PD patient in a regional public health care system (2003-2006). We prospectively collected baseline data, hospital admissions, peritonitis, transplants, CV events and deaths. Every six months PD prescription data and results on efficacy, anaemia, blood pressure (BP) were collected. RESULTS: DM 2 patients (n = 65) were older and presented a higher rate of previous CV events (60.9% vs. 17.7% p<0001) than non-DM patients (n = 376) and worse BP control at inclusion on PD. There were no differences in dialysis efficacy targets and anaemia management. HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS: DM 2 patients present higher hospitalisation rates 1.1 [0.9-1.4] than NoDM ones 0.6 [0.5-0.7] admissions per year at risk. Survival: DM 2 patients present lower PD-technique survival than No DM ones (870 vs. 1002 days Kaplan-Mayer estimation p = 0.009) and higher annual mortality rate (13.7 vs. 4.1%, p: 0.021) with a crude mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 2.5 [1.1-5.6] after correction by age. However, the best predictive model for mortality by Cox proportional hazards model includes age, existence of previous CV events and forced inclusion on PD and excludes DM 2. The association between DM 2 and CV events ruled out DM 2 from the multivariate risk model. CONCLUSION: Type 2 DM patients had a higher prevalence of previous CV events, and a worse global outcome. Previous CV events may explain part of this risk.

Peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplant. A two-way ticket in an integrated renal replacement therapy model.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) seems to be a good option to initiate renal replacement therapy (RRT), but patients with graft failure choose PD less frequently than incident patients (de novo). OBJECTIVE: To describe patient movements between PD and kidney transplantation (TX) and risk factors for failure of the PD technique. METHOD: Multicentre observational study of patients starting PD between 2003 and 2009 with follow-up up until January 2010. Survival analysis based on switching from PD to HD as an event using Kaplan-Meier (KM) and forward, stepwise Cox proportional hazards models. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (HR [CI]) are shown. MAIN VARIABLE: Switch from PD to HD. Two-group comparison: PD post transplant (post-TX) patients (76) compared to pure incident PD (de novo-PD) patients (830). PATIENTS: 906 PD patients from 19 public hospitals with a mean age of 54.8 years (64.9% male); main ESRD aetiology: glomerulonephritis (25.4%), diabetes (16.7%), vascular-ischaemic (10.7%), interstitial (13.6%) and polycystic (11.2%). Comorbidity conditions: Charlson Index 5.1 (SD 2.4); 21.6% diabetes mellitus (DM), 24.0% cardiovascular (CV) events. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period on PD: 1.85 years (95% CI [1.68-2.02 years]). KM estimation for switching to HD due to PD failure was 5.46 years [4.42-6.50 years]. At the end of follow-up, 88 patients had died, 154 had been transferred to HD and 306 had received a graft (annual rate for patients on waiting list: 0.49 TX per year on PD). The best Cox multivariate model for switching from PD to HD includes: post-TX (HR: 1.63 [1.01-2.63]), DM (HR: 1.69 [1.19-2.40]) and age (1.01 [1.00-1.02]) per year. Post-TX patients were younger (43.8 years vs 55.3 years) and with less comorbidity conditions than de novo-PD patients (DM 18.4% vs 21.9%; CV 15.8% vs 24.7%). However post-TX patients had worse clinical evolution with a rapid decline of renal function (∆-3.88 vs -1.8 ml/min per year); a higher admission rate (0.9 vs 0.62 per year) but similar peritonitis rate (0.45 vs 0.53 episodes per year). They also needed to be transferred to HD more frequently (28.9% vs 15.8%; P<.006) and needed more time to TX (4.8 years vs 1.7 years, Kaplan-Meier). Consequently, time spent on PD was higher in the post-TX group (2.8 vs 1.8 year). LIMITATIONS: Observational study with absence of a standard protocol to switch PD-HD. CONCLUSION: PD seems to be a good first choice technique due to low mortality and high TX ratio in our area. A previous graft failure is associated with a higher rate of PD-failure but time spent on PD is enough to consider this technique as a good option.