Early-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a Chinese cohort study on outcome.

Background: Early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective option for patients need unplanned dialysis. However, there are few studies on the long-term prognosis of early-start PD patients.Methods: In this retrospective study, 635 eligible patients from 1 March 1996 to 30 September 2016 were included, and divided into three groups according to the duration of break-in period: 3 days or less, 4-13 days and more than 14 days. Patients started PD within 2 weeks and after 2 weeks were defined as early-start and conventional-start, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome measures were peritonitis free survival and technical survival. Mechanical and infectious complications in the first 180 days were also analyzed.Results: Early-start PD patients were more likely to have higher serum total carbon dioxide and creatinine levels and lower serum albumin, Kt/v, creatinine clearance (Ccr) and residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) levels at the start of PD. The median follow-up period was 30 months (interquartile range, 13-53 months). A worse survival was observed in the early-start group than that in the conventional-start group (p < 0.001), even adjustment for the covariates (HR 1.549, 95%CI 1.104-2.173, p = 0.011). In the subgroup analysis, in patients commencing PD after 2006 early-start and conventional-start PD patients had comparable survival. No differences were observed in the rate of infectious and mechanical complications, peritonitis-free survival and technique survival between early-start and conventional-start PD patients.Conclusions: Early-start PD could be a safe and effective strategy for patients needing unplanned dialysis initiation with the progress of technology on PD.

Comparative effectiveness of early versus conventional timing of dialysis initiation in advanced CKD.

BACKGROUND: Previous observational studies examining outcomes associated with the timing of dialysis therapy initiation in the United States have often been limited by lead time and survivor bias. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing the effectiveness of early versus later (conventional) dialysis therapy initiation in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). The analysis used inverse probability weighting to account for an individual's contribution to different exposure groups over time in a pooled logistic regression model. Patients contributed risk to both exposure categories (early and later initiation) until there was a clear treatment strategy (ie, dialysis therapy was initiated early or estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] decreased to <10mL/min/1.73m(2)). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD who had at least one face-to-face outpatient encounter with a Cleveland Clinic health care provider as of January 1, 2005, and at least 3 eGFRs in the range of 20-30mL/min/1.73m(2) measured at least 180 days apart. PREDICTORS: Timing of dialysis therapy initiation as determined using model-based interpolation of eGFR trajectories over time. Timing was defined as early (interpolated eGFR at dialysis therapy initiation≥10mL/min/1.73m(2)) or later (eGFR < 10mL/min/1.73m(2)) and was time-varying. OUTCOMES: Death from any cause occurring from the time that eGFR was equal to 20mL/min/1.73m(2) through September 15, 2009. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 652 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Most (71.3%) of the study population did not initiate dialysis therapy during follow-up. Patients who did not initiate dialysis therapy (n=465) were older, more likely to be white, and had more favorable laboratory profiles than those who started dialysis therapy. Overall, 146 initiated dialysis early and 80 had eGFRs decrease to <10mL/min/1.73m(2). Many participants (n=426) were censored prior to attaining a clear treatment strategy and were considered undeclared. There was no statistically significant survival difference for the early compared with later initiation strategy (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65-1.11). LIMITATIONS: Interpolated eGFR, moderate sample size, and likely unmeasured confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced CKD, timing of dialysis therapy initiation was not associated with mortality when accounting for lead time bias and survivor bias.

Outcomes of early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) and the comparison with urgent-start hemodialysis and conventional-start PD.

BACKGROUND: Limited data in the literature is comparing early-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) with the jugular central venous catheter (CVC), and conventional-start PD. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted with 148 patients with early-start PD, 104 patients with conventional-start PD, and 100 patients with urgent-start HD. Early-start PD was defined as catheter break-in time between 3 and 14 days. RESULTS: The occurrence of dialysate-leakage was similar between PD groups (p = 0.1). Bleeding at the catheter site was detected in 8 (2.3%) patients with CVC. There was no significant difference in catheter dysfunction and revision. PD groups had statistically similar peritonitis rates (p = 0.5). 19% (19/100) of patients suffered CVC-related bloodstream infection and one patient died due to septic shock. Technique survival was significantly higher at early-start PD than the conventional-start PD at 6 months (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Initiating early-start PD is comparable with conventional-start PD, and it may be an alternative dialysis modality to avoid bloodstream infections in suitable patients.

Impact of unplanned peritoneal dialysis start on patients' outcomes-A multicenter cohort study.

Background: Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who start unplanned dialysis therapy are more likely to be treated with hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter, which has been associated with a greater risk of infections and other complications, as well as with a higher long-term risk of death. Urgent-start PD is an alternative that has been suggested as an option for starting dialysis in these cases, with potentially better patient outcomes. However, the definition of urgent-start PD is not homogeneous, and no study, to our knowledge, has compared clinical outcomes among urgent start, early start, and conventional start of PD. In this study, we aimed to compare these types of initiation of dialysis therapy in terms of a composite outcome of patient survival and technique failure. Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study, involving data from 122 PD clinics in Brazil. We used the following: Urgent-start groups refer to patients who initiated PD within 72 h after the PD catheter insertion; early-start groups are those starting PD from 72 h to 2 weeks after the catheter insertion; and conventional-start groups are those who used the PD catheter after 2 weeks from its insertion. We analyzed the composite endpoint of all causes of patient's mortality and technique failure (within the initial 90 days of PD therapy) using the following three different statistical models: multivariate Cox, Fine and Gay competing risk, and a multilevel model. Results: We included 509 patients with valid data across 68 PD clinics. There were 38 primary outcomes, comprising 25 deaths and 13 technique failures, with a total follow-up time of 1,393.3 months. Urgent-start PD had no association with the composite endpoint in all three models. Conclusion: Unplanned PD seems to be a safe and feasible option for treatment for patients with non-dialysis ESKD in urgent need of dialysis.