Kidney international reports · 2024
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis for Urgent-Start Dialysis in ESRD.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jin Haijiao, Fang Wei, Wang Ling, Zang Xiujuan, Deng Yueyi, Wu Guoqing, Li Ying, Chen Xiaonong, Wang Niansong, Jiang Gengru, Guo Zhiyong, Wang Xiaoxia, Qi Yinghui, Lv Shifan, Ni Zhaohui
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) shows promise for urgent-start dialysis in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with automated PD (APD) having advantages. However, there is limited multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence comparing APD with temporary hemodialysis (HD) for this indication in China.
METHODS: This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications.
RESULTS: The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424).
CONCLUSION: For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.
METHODS: This multicenter RCT enrolled 116 patients with ESRD requiring urgent dialysis from 11 hospitals, randomized to APD or HD. Patients underwent a 2-week treatment with APD or HD via a temporary central venous catheter (CVC), followed by a maintenance PD. Outcomes were assessed over 12 months during 8 visits. The primary outcome was dialysis-related complications.
RESULTS: The 1-year incidence of dialysis-related complications was significantly lower in the APD group than in the HD group (25.9% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of PD catheter survival rates (P = 0.388), peritonitis-free survival rates (P = 0.335), and patient survival rates (P = 0.329). In terms of health economics, the total direct medical cost of the initial hospitalization for patients with ESRD was significantly lower in the APD group (27,008.39 CNY) than in the HD group (42,597.54 CNY) (P = 0.001), whereas the duration of the first hospital stay showed no significant difference (P = 0.424).
CONCLUSION: For patients with ESRD needing urgent initiation of dialysis, APD was associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-related complications and lower initial hospitalization costs compared with HD, with no significant differences in PD catheter survival rate, peritonitis-free survival rates, or patient survival rates. These findings can guide clinical decision-making for the optimal dialysis modality for patients requiring urgent dialysis initiation.