Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people with chronic kidney disease

Htay Htay, David W Johnson, Jonathan C Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Carmel M Hawley, Yeoungjee Cho, Htay Htay, David W Johnson, Jonathan C Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Carmel M Hawley, Yeoungjee Cho

Abstract

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients.

Objectives: This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched.

Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

Main results: Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I2 = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I2 = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD.

Authors' conclusions: Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02946528 NCT03474367.

Conflict of interest statement

Carmel Hawley has received fees from Amgen, Shire, Roche, Abbott, Bayer, Fresenius, Baxter, Gambro, Janssen‐Cilag and Genzyme in relation to consultancy, speakers' fees, education, and grants for activities unrelated to this review.

David Johnson has received consultancy fees, research grants, speaker's honoraria and travel sponsorships from Baxter Healthcare and Fresenius Medical Care. He has also received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, AWAK, and travel sponsorships from Amgen. All funding was unrelated to this review. Yeoungjee Cho has received research grants and speaker’s honoraria from Baxter Healthcare and Fresenius Medical Care. She has also received research grants from Amgen. All funding was unrelated to this review.Htay Htay has received consultancy fees and travel sponsorships from AWAK technology, speaker’s honoraria and travel sponsorships from Baxter Healthcare and research grants from Johnson & Johnson Company and Singhealth. All funding was unrelated to this review.