Dataset Information

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Assisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study by linking a quality assurance dataset to administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were accrued between January 1, 2004 and July 9, 2013. Individuals were grouped into assisted peritoneal dialysis (family or home care assisted) or in-center hemodialysis on the basis of their first outpatient dialysis modality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score was used to create a sample in which the baseline covariates were well balanced.

Results

The study included 872 patients in the in-center hemodialysis group and 203 patients in the assisted peritoneal dialysis group. Using an intention to treat approach, patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis had a similar hospitalization rate of 11.1 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 9.4 to 13.0) compared with 12.9 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 16.1) in the hemodialysis group (P=0.19). Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis were more likely to be hospitalized for dialysis-related reasons (admitted for 2.4 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 3.2] compared with 1.6 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3] in the hemodialysis group; P=0.04). This difference was partly explained by more hospital days because of peritonitis. Modality switching was associated with high rates of hospital days per year.

Conclusions

Assisted peritoneal dialysis was associated with similar rates of all-cause hospitalization compared with in-center hemodialysis. Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis who experienced peritonitis and technique failure had high rates of hospitalization.

SUBMITTER: Oliver MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5012487 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis.

Oliver Matthew J MJ Al-Jaishi Ahmed A AA Dixon Stephanie N SN Perl Jeffrey J Jain Arsh K AK Lavoie Susan D SD Nash Danielle M DM Paterson J Michael JM Lok Charmaine E CE Quinn Robert R RR

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20160727 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Assisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.<h4>Design, setting, participants, & measurements</h4>We conducted a m ...[more]

PMID: 27464838

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of peritoneal dialysis modality on patient survival and peritonitis rates is not fully understood, and no large-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) is available. In the absence of a RCT, the use of an advanced matching procedure to reduce selection bias in large cohort studies may be the best approach. The aim of this study is to compare automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) according to peritonitis risk, technique failure and patient survival in a large nation-wide PD cohort.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study that included all incident PD patients with at least 90 days of PD recruited in the BRAZPD study. All patients who were treated exclusively with either APD or CAPD were matched for 15 different covariates using a propensity score calculated with the nearest neighbor method. Clinical outcomes analyzed were overall mortality, technique failure and time to first peritonitis. For all analysis we also adjusted the curves for the presence of competing risks with the Fine and Gray analysis.ResultsAfter the matching procedure, 2,890 patients were included in the analysis (1,445 in each group). Baseline characteristics were similar for all covariates including: age, diabetes, BMI, Center-experience, coronary artery disease, cancer, literacy, hypertension, race, previous HD, gender, pre-dialysis care, family income, peripheral artery disease and year of starting PD. Mortality rate was higher in CAPD patients (SHR1.44 CI95%1.21-1.71) compared to APD, but no difference was observed for technique failure (SHR0.83 CI95%0.69-1.02) nor for time till the first peritonitis episode (SHR0.96 CI95%0.93-1.11).ConclusionIn the first large PD cohort study with groups balanced for several covariates using propensity score matching, PD modality was not associated with differences in neither time to first peritonitis nor in technique failure. Nevertheless, patient survival was significantly better in APD patients.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveWe sought to compare outcomes of patients receiving dialysis after cardiothoracic surgery on the basis of dialysis modality (intermittent hemodialysis [HD] vs peritoneal dialysis [PD]).Study designThis was a retrospective analysis.Setting & participantsIn total, 590 patients with kidney failure receiving intermittent HD or PD undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or valvular cardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic were included.ExposureThe patients received PD versus HD (intermittent or continuous).OutcomesOur primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, days in the intensive care unit, the number of intraoperative blood transfusions, postsurgical pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infection, and a composite of the following 4 in-hospital events: death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection.Analytical approachWe used χ2, Fisher exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and t tests, Kaplan-Meier survival, and plots for analysis.ResultsAmong the 590 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 62 (11%) were receiving PD, and 528 (89%) were receiving intermittent HD. Notably, 30-day Kaplan-Meier survival was 95.7% (95% CI: 93.9-97.5) for HD and 98.2% (95% CI: 94.7-100) for PD (P = 0.30). In total, 75 patients receiving HD (14.2%) and 1 patient receiving PD (1.6%) had a composite of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection) (P = 0.005). Out of 62 patients receiving PD, 16 (26%) were converted to HD.LimitationsRetrospective analyses are prone to residual confounding. We lacked details about nutritional data. Intensive care unit length of stay was used as a surrogate for volume status control. Patients have been followed in a single health care system. The HD cohort outnumbered the PD cohort significantly.ConclusionsWhen compared with PD, HD does not appear to improve outcomes of patients with kidney failure undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Patients receiving PD had a lower incidence of a composite outcome of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infections).

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.ResultsOur study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.ConclusionIn an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.

Dataset Information

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis.

Background and objectives

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets