Dataset Information

Percutaneous Versus Surgical Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.

Objective:

To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.

Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting:

We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.

Patients:

Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.

Measurements:

We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.

Methods:

Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results:

Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.

Limitations:

Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).

Conclusions:

Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593295 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease following liver transplantation is a major long-term complication. Most liver transplant recipients with kidney failure will be treated with dialysis instead of kidney transplantation due to noneligibility and shortage in organ availability. In this population, the role of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a modality of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility regarding safety, technique survival, and dialysis efficiency of PD in liver transplant recipients requiring KRT for maintenance dialysis.DesignSystematic review.SettingInterventional and observational studies reporting the use of PD after liver transplantation.PatientsAdult liver transplant recipients with kidney failure treated with maintenance KRT.MeasurementsExtracted data included eligibility criteria, study design, demographics, and PD modality. The following outcomes of interest were extracted: rate of peritonitis and microorganisms involved, noninfectious peritoneal complications, technique survival, and kidney transplantation-censored technique survival. Non-PD complications included overall survival, liver graft dysfunction, and hospitalization rate.MethodsThe following databases were searched until July 2020: MedLine/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screening all titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Due to the limited sample size, observational designs and study heterogeneity expected, no meta-analysis was pre-planned. Descriptive statistics were used to report all results.ResultsFrom the 5263 identified studies, 4 were included in the analysis as they reported at least 1 outcome of interest on a total of 21 liver transplant recipients, with an overall follow-up duration on PD of 19.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 9.5-29.5) months. Fifteen episodes of peritonitis occurred in a total cumulative PD follow-up of 514 patient-months, representing an incidence rate of 0.35 per year. These episodes did not result in PD technique failure, mortality, or impairment of liver graft function.LimitationsLimitations include the paucity of studies in the field and the small number of patients included in each report, a risk of publication bias and the impossibility to directly compare hemodialysis to PD in this population. These results, therefore, must be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsBased on limited data reporting the feasibility of PD in liver transplant recipients with kidney failure, no signal was associated with an increased risk of infectious complications. Long-term studies evaluating this modality need to be performed.Registration prosperoCRD42020218374.

Project description:BackgroundExercise has been shown to be of benefit in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases. Despite a lack of compelling evidence, patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) are often discouraged from participating in exercise programs that include weight lifting due to concerns about the development of hernias and leaks. The actual effects of physical activity with or without structured exercise programs for patients on PD remain unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the risks and benefits of physical activity in the ESKD population treated with PD.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingIncluded all studies that met our criteria regardless of country of origin.PatientsAdult patients with ESKD treated with PD.MeasurementsDescriptive and quantitative analysis of our primary and secondary outcome variables.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for observational and interventional studies examining the effects of physical activity in patients on PD. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of the identified studies. The primary outcomes of interest included patient-centered outcomes of mental health, physical functioning, fatigue, quality of life, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nutritional measures, lipid profile, blood pressure changes, maximum heart rate, resting heart rate, maximal oxygen consumption, muscle development, cognitive function, and markers of inflammation.ResultsOf 1828 studies identified by the literature search, 12 met the inclusion criteria including 6 interventional and 6 observational studies. There was limited information on the patient important outcomes. However, there is some evidence for improvements in burden of kidney disease, physical function, and some mental health measures with physical activity.LimitationsLack of well-designed randomized controlled trials impaired our ability to determine the benefits and risks of increasing physical activity.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence of benefit with increased levels of physical activity in PD patients. Further research is needed to define the exercise program that is likely to be of most benefit to patients treated with PD.

Project description:IntroductionAn increasing number of studies comparing automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in clinical outcomes have been published since the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis including three randomised controlled trials in 2007. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore more clinical outcomes of APD versus CAPD for end-stage kidney disease.Methods and analysisThe protocol is conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Three databases-PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library-will be searched comprehensively from inception to 16 June 2022, without language restriction. Studies reporting clinical outcomes comparing APD with CAPD will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and then obtain and assess full texts of potential relevant articles for eligibility following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included observational studies will be assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The risk of bias of included randomised controlled studies will be assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean difference for continuous outcomes with corresponding 95% CIs will be pooled for summary effects. Cochrane Q test and I 2 values will be used to assess heterogeneity between studies. To assess and explore the source of heterogeneity, subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted, and meta-regression, funnel plot and Egger's test will be performed if there are no less than 10 studies. Analyses will be performed using STATA software, V.13.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as no personal information is collected from patients. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant academic conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42022311401.