A COVID-19 pandemic-specific, structured care process for peritoneal dialysis patients facilitated by telemedicine: Therapy continuity, prevention, and complications management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Polanco E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014150 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:♦ BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is recommended for adults with residual kidney function and without significant comorbidities. However, peritonitis is a serious and common complication that is associated with hospitalization, pain, catheter loss, and death. This study aims to describe the beliefs, needs, and experiences of PD patients about peritonitis, to inform the training, support, and care of these patients. ♦ METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 patients from 3 renal units in Australia who had previous or current experience of PD. The interviews were conducted between November 2014 and November 2015. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. ♦ RESULTS: We identified 4 themes: constant vigilance for prevention (conscious of vulnerability, sharing responsibility with family, demanding attention to detail, ambiguity of detecting infection, ineradicable inhabitation, jeopardizing PD success); invading harm (life-threatening, wreaking internal damage, debilitating pain, losing control and dignity); incapacitating lifestyle interference (financial strain, isolation and separation, exacerbating burden on family); and exasperation with hospitalization (dread of hospital admission, exposure to infection, gruelling follow-up schedule, exposure to harm). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceived that peritonitis could threaten their health, treatment modality, and lifestyle, which motivated vigilance and attention to hygiene. They felt a loss of control due to debilitating symptoms including pain and having to be hospitalized, and they were uncertain about how to monitor for signs of peritonitis. Providing patients with education about the causes and signs of peritonitis and addressing their concerns about lifestyle impact, financial impact, hospitalization, and peritonitis-related anxieties may improve treatment satisfaction and outcomes for patients requiring PD.
| S-EPMC5174870 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionUrgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with newly diagnosed end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a well-tolerated alternative to hemodialysis (HD). The primary aim of this study was to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of ESRD patients, as well as the presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical factors associated with urgent-start PD complications.MethodsA retrospective cross-sectional observational study was performed on 102 patients with ESRD who merited urgent-start PD from January 2015 to June 2019. The primary clinical outcome measures were catheter leakage, dysfunction, and peritonitis, whereas the secondary outcomes were catheter removal, repositioning, and death. Statistical inferences were made with the χ2 or Fisher's exact test and independent samples t tests.ResultsOne hundred two subjects (65 men, 63.7%) 56.2 ± 15.1 years old were included in this study; 64 of the subjects had diabetes and hypertension (62.7%). Catheter leakage occurred in 8 patients (7.8%), catheter dysfunction in 27 patients (26.5%), and peritonitis in 14 patients (13.7%); meanwhile, catheter removal occurred in 6 patients (5.9%), catheter repositioning in 21 patients (20.6%), and death in 3 patients (2.9%). Peritonitis was associated with younger age (i.e., 47.0 ± 16.8 vs. 57.6 ± 14.4 years; P = 0.014; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2-19.1; odds ratio [OR] 0.96; P = 0.018; 95% CI: 0.92-099), higher creatinine levels upon admission (i.e., 20.2 ± 9.8 vs. 14.1 ± 8.3; P = 0.014; 95% CI: -10.9 to -1.2), and heart failure (OR 4.79; P = 0.043; 95% CI: 1.05-21.88). Patients with abdominal hernia were 7.5 times more likely to have their catheter leak (OR 7.5; P = 0.036; 95% CI: 1.14-49.54). Catheter removal was associated with obesity (i.e., body mass index [BMI] of 31.6 ± 4.1 vs. 25.9 ± 4.9; P = 0.007; 95% CI: -9.8 to -1.6; OR 1.26; P = 0.013; 95% CI: 1.05-1.51) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease glomerular filtration rate (MDRD-GFR) (i.e., 2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 3.7 ± 2.3; P = 0.003; 95% CI: 0.5-1.9).ConclusionPeritonitis was associated with younger age, higher creatinine levels upon admission, and heart failure; meanwhile, catheter removal was linked to obesity and lower glomerular filtration rate. Compared with previous reports, our study included patients in which PD was initiated shortly after catheter insertion, making the intervention a true urgent-start PD. This study contributes to the existing urgent-start PD literature by providing evidence that urgent-start PD with catheter opening within 72 hours has limited complications, making it a relatively safe option.
| S-EPMC7572310 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5100934 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6206892 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections lead to significant morbidity. The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines for the prevention and treatment of PD-related infections are based on variable evidence. We describe practice patterns across facilities participating in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS).MethodsPDOPPS, a prospective cohort study, enrolled nationally representative samples of PD patients in Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Canada, Thailand, Japan, the UK and the USA. Data on PD-related infection prevention and treatment practices across facilities were obtained from a survey of medical directors'.ResultsA total of 170 centers, caring for >11 000 patients, were included. The proportion of facilities reporting antibiotic administration at the time of PD catheter insertion was lowest in the USA (63%) and highest in Canada and the UK (100%). Exit-site antimicrobial prophylaxis was variably used across countries, with Japan (4%) and Thailand (28%) having the lowest proportions. Exit-site mupirocin was the predominant exit-site prophylactic strategy in ANZ (56%), Canada (50%) and the UK (47%), while exit-site aminoglycosides were more common in the USA (72%). Empiric Gram-positive peritonitis treatment with vancomycin was most common in the UK (88%) and USA (83%) compared with 10-45% elsewhere. Empiric Gram-negative peritonitis treatment with aminoglycoside therapy was highest in ANZ (72%) and the UK (77%) compared with 10-45% elsewhere.ConclusionsVariation in PD-related infection prevention and treatment strategies exist across countries with limited uptake of ISPD guideline recommendations. Further work will aim to understand the impact these differences have on the wide variation in infection risk between facilities and other clinically relevant PD outcomes.
| S-EPMC6887924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is spread from human to human and has resulted in a global pandemic, posing a disastrous public health risk worldwide. Patients with chronic kidney disease, especially those on dialysis, are considered to be at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 due to their immunocompromised status and frail condition. The home treatment setting of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has advantages in terms of implementing self-care when routine hospital visits and social activities are restricted, thus greatly reducing exposure of PD patients to the virus.Methods and resultsWe outline general operational considerations in PD management during the COVID-19 pandemic, including precautionary measures for PD patients and healthcare staff. Precautionary measures for PD patients include education on prevention of, and screening for, COVID-19, preclinic screening, in-clinic management, meticulous remote patient management and special hospitalization arrangements. The diagnosis and treatment of PD patients with COVID-19 are discussed. Precautionary measures for PD staff include continuous education on, and training in, COVID-19, exposure history surveillance and self-monitoring for COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, appropriate personal protective equipment and hand hygiene, organization of medical activities and staffing, and adequate environment cleaning.ConclusionsThis is a battle of the entire human society against the novel coronavirus. Integrated teamwork among healthcare providers, supported by society as a whole, is needed as part of the ongoing public health response to try to slow the spread of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7337678 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7460897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the symptoms, changes in laboratory findings during the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, and the effect of depression in patients with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This is an observational and cross-sectional study. All patients were asked to fill the clinical assessment form and Beck depression and anxiety inventory. Also, the last two laboratory evaluations during this period were examined. A total of 123 patients performing PD were included. None of the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. In the total study population, parathyroid hormone (PTH), serum albumin, phosphorus and ferritin levels significantly elevated at the end of 97 ± 31 days. PTH and phosphorus levels remained stable in remote monitoring automated PD (RM-APD) group (p = 0.4 and p = 0.5), they tended to increase in continuous ambulatory PD group and significantly increased in automated PD group (p = 0.09 and p = 0.01 for PTH and p = 0.06 and p = 0.001 for phosphorus, respectively). Moderate to severe depression was associated with dyspnoea, weight gain more than 5 kg, fatigue, palpitation and increased anxiety. PD is a reliable and successful form of dialysis and can be safely administered even if hospital access is restricted. Also, RM-APD may be a better choice because of providing more stable bone-mineral metabolism. Moreover, evaluating depression and anxiety is essential for the accurate clinical assessment.
| S-EPMC7753638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIrisin is a recently discovered myokine thought to be involved in multiple metabolism abnormalities in most dialysis patients. However, the myokine has not been thoroughly studied in peritoneal dialysis. This study aimed to evaluate serum irisin levels and establish their relation to dialysis adequacy, insulin resistance, and bone metabolism status in patients on peritoneal dialysis.MethodsA total of 59 nondiabetic prevalent peritoneal dialysis patients and 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Serum irisin concentration was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The correlations between serum irisin and dialysis adequacy, clinical, and metabolic variables were investigated.ResultsSerum irisin levels were lower in nondiabetic peritoneal dialysis patients (17.02ng/ml) compared with healthy controls (22.17ng/ml, P<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that fasting glucose levels were correlated inversely with serum irisin levels in peritoneal dialysis patients. Serum irisin levels were associated with neither insulin resistance nor bone metabolism in our patients. Serum irisin levels were positively associated with peritoneal Kt/Vurea (β = 4.933, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.536-9.331, P = 0.029) and peritoneal CCr (β = 0.259, 95% CI = 0.053-0.465, P = 0.015) among peritoneal dialysis patients.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that non-diabetic peritoneal dialysis patients have lower serum irisin levels, and the levels were correlated with peritoneal dialysis adequacy, indicating adequate dialysis may improve irisin secretion. Additional studies are needed to provide a confirmation.
| S-EPMC5406024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResults concerning the association between peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis and mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients are inconclusive, with one potential reason being that the time-dependent effect of peritonitis has rarely been considered in previous studies. This study aimed to evaluate whether peritonitis has a negative impact on mortality in a large cohort of peritoneal dialysis patients. We also assessed the changing impact of peritonitis on patient mortality with respect to duration of follow-up.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included incident patients who started peritoneal dialysis from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2011. Episodes of peritonitis were recorded at the time of onset, and peritonitis was parameterized as a time-dependent variable for analysis. We used the Cox regression model to assess whether peritonitis has a negative impact on mortality.ResultsA total of 1321 patients were included. The mean age was 48.1 ± 15.3 years, 41.3% were female, and 23.5% with diabetes mellitus. The median (interquartile) follow-up time was 34 (21-48) months. After adjusting for confounders, peritonitis was independently associated with 95% increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval: 1.46-2.60), 90% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval: 1.28-2.81) and near 4-fold increased risk of infection-related mortality (hazard ratio, 4.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.47-9.86). Further analyses showed that peritonitis was not significantly associated with mortality within 2 years of peritoneal dialysis initiation, but strongly influenced mortality in patients dialysed longer than 2 years.ConclusionsPeritonitis was independently associated with higher risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients, and its impact on mortality was more significant in patients with longer peritoneal dialysis duration.
| S-EPMC5460447 | biostudies-literature