PATIENTS AND METHODS: The open, paramedian approach is the commonest technique to insert the 62-cm coiled double-cuffed Tenckhoff peritoneal catheter. All patients with catheters inserted between January 2004 and November 2007 were retrospectively analyzed for demographics and followed for up to 1 month for complications. We excluded patients whose catheters had been anchored to the bladder wall and who underwent concurrent omentectomy or readjustment without removal of a malfunctioning catheter (n = 7). Intravenous cloxacillin was the standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. ♢
RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period, 384 catheters were inserted under local anesthetic into 319 patients [201 women (62.8%); mean age: 49.4 ± 16.7 years (range: 13 - 89 years); 167 (52.2%) with diabetes; 303 (95%) with end-stage renal disease] by 22 different operators. All Tenckhoff catheters were inserted by the general surgical (n = 223) or urology (n = 161) team. There were 29 cases (7.6%) of catheter migration, 22 (5.7%) of catheter obstruction without migration, 24 (6.3%) of exit-site infection, 12 (3.1%) of leak from the main incision, 14 (3.6%) of culture-proven wound infection, 11 (2.9%) post-insertion peritonitis, and 1 (0.3%) hemoperitoneum. No deaths were attributed to surgical mishap. ♢
CONCLUSIONS: The most common complication was catheter migration. The paramedian insertion technique was safe, with low complication rates.
Methods: This is a cohort study where prevalent ESRD patients' details were recorded between May 2012 and October 2012. Their records were matched with national death record at the end of year 2015 to identify the deceased patients within three years. Four models were formulated with two models were based on logistic regression models but with different number of predictors and two models were developed based on risk scoring technique. The preferred models were validated by using sensitivity and specificity analysis.
Results: A total of 1332 patients were included in the study. Majority succumbed due to cardiovascular disease (48.3%) and sepsis (41.3%). The identified risk factors were mode of dialysis (P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (P < 0.001), chronic heart disease (P < 0.001) and leg amputation (P = 0.016). The accuracy of four models was almost similar with AUC between 0.680 and 0.711. The predictive models from logistic regression model and risk scoring model were selected as the preferred models based on both accuracy and simplicity. Besides the mode of dialysis, diabetes mellitus and its complications are the important predictors for early mortality among prevalent ESRD patients.
Conclusions: The models either based on logistic regression or risk scoring model can be used to screen high risk prevalent ESRD patients.
METHODS: Using the Short Form of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS21) questionnaire, we aimed (1) to measure the psychological states of hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) subjects from 15 sites, (2) to compare DASS21 scores between HD and PD, and (3) to identify the associated demographic and medical factors of better psychological states.
RESULTS: A total of 1,332 were eligible for analysis. Stress (48%) recorded the highest negative emotional states, followed by depression (37%) and anxiety (20%). By multivariate analysis, normal body mass index weight status, religion and absence of coronary artery disease were associated with lower score for depression, anxiety and stress, respectively. Tertiary education was associated with the lowest score in depression and anxiety, whereas HD had a lower score in stress than PD. A younger age was associated with worse DASS21 score of anxiety and stress.
CONCLUSIONS: Obesity, religion and coronary artery disease were significantly associated with all 3 symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. Older age has a protective effect on anxiety and stress. Further study is needed to evaluate the relationship between these significant factors and each psychological state.
METHOD: A multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted. Adult patients receiving CAPD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to SSL or STS. The primary outcome was the rate of peritonitis after 1 year of follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 472 subjects were randomised (SSL, n = 233; STS, n = 239). One subject in each group was excluded from the analysis as they withdrew consent before the first dialysis dose. Four hundred and seventy subjects (SSL, n = 232; STS, n = 238) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority between two groups was established as no significant difference was found in peritonitis rate (incident rate ratio: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65-1.28). No significant difference was detected in weekly Kt/V (p = 0.58) and creatinine clearance (p = 0.55). However, the average ultrafiltration volume was significantly lower in SSL, with a mean difference of 93 ml (p < 0.01). SSL also demonstrated a 2.57-times higher risk of device defect than STS (95% CI: 1.77-3.75).
CONCLUSION: SSL was non-inferior in peritonitis rate compared to plastic-free STS over 1 year in patients requiring CAPD. There was no difference in the delivered dialysis dose, but there was a higher rate of device defects with SSL.
METHODS: VALID is a prospective, multi-center, multinational validation study that will assess the accuracy and feasibility of measuring VA function, defined as the need for interventions to enable and maintain the use of a VA for HD. The primary objective is to determine whether VA function can be measured accurately by clinical staff as part of routine clinical practice (Assessor 1) compared to the reference standard of documented VA procedures collected by a VA expert (Assessor 2) during a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and acceptability of measuring VA function and the time to, rate of, and type of VA interventions. An estimated 612 participants will be recruited from approximately 10 dialysis units of different size, type (home-, in-center and satellite), governance (private versus public), and location (rural versus urban) across Australia, Canada, Europe, and Malaysia. Validity will be measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the data acquisition process. The sensitivity corresponds to the proportion of correctly identified interventions by Assessor 1, among the interventions identified by Assessor 2 (reference standard). The feasibility of measuring VA function will be assessed by the average data collection time, data completeness, feasibility questionnaires and semi-structured interviews on key feasibility aspects with the assessors.
DISCUSSION: Accuracy, acceptability, and feasibility of measuring VA function as part of routine clinical practice are required to facilitate global implementation of this core outcome across all HD trials. Global use of a standardized, patient-centered outcome measure for VA function in HD research will enhance the consistency and relevance of trial evidence to guide patient-centered care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03969225. Registered on 31st May 2019.