Dataset Information

Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients' dietary behaviors.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Nutritional factors are associated with high mortality and morbidity in dialysis patients, and protein-energy wasting is regarded as an important one. The modality of dialysis may affect patients' dietary behavior and nutritional status, but no study has compared the dietary behavior, nutrient intake, and nutritional adequacy of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. METHODS:From December 2016 to May 2017, a dietary behavior survey and Semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (Semi-FFQ) were conducted on 30 HD patients and 30 PD patients in Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, and laboratory parameters were obtained. The results of prevalent HD and PD patients were then compared. RESULTS:The mean age of HD patients was higher than that of PD patients; HD: 58.5?±?9.1?years, PD: 49.3?±?9.7?years (p?=?0.001). In the dietary behavior survey, HD patients showed more appropriate dietary behavior patterns overall than PD patients. In the dietary intake analysis with the Semi-FFQ, energy intake was significantly lower in the PD group than in the HD group due to the lower intake of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. A comparison of nutrient intake-to-recommended allowance ratio between the HD and PD groups revealed that the HD group showed higher nutrient intake than the PD group. Serum albumin and potassium levels were significantly higher in HD than in PD patients. CONCLUSION:According to this study, the dietary behavior and nutritional intake of prevalent PD patients were worse than those of HD patients.

SUBMITTER: Kim SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063748 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients' dietary behaviors.

Kim Seon-Mi SM Kang Byung Chin BC Kim Hyun-Jung HJ Kyung Min-Sook MS Oh Hyung Jung HJ Kim Jung-Hyun JH Kwon Oran O Ryu Dong-Ryeol DR

BMC nephrology 20200310 1

<h4>Background</h4>Nutritional factors are associated with high mortality and morbidity in dialysis patients, and protein-energy wasting is regarded as an important one. The modality of dialysis may affect patients' dietary behavior and nutritional status, but no study has compared the dietary behavior, nutrient intake, and nutritional adequacy of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>From December 2016 to May 2017, a dietary behavior survey and Semi-quantitativ ...[more]

PMID: 32156264

Similar Datasets

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: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: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

Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients' dietary behaviors.

Publications

Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients' dietary behaviors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets