Safety, Effectiveness, and Manipulability of Peritoneal Dialysis Machines Made in China: A Randomized, Crossover, Multicenter Clinical Study

Xue-Ying Cao, Ya-Ni He, Jian-Hui Zhou, Shi-Ren Sun, Li-Ning Miao, Wen Chen, Jing-Ai Fang, Ming Wang, Nian-Song Wang, Hong-Li Lin, Jian Liu, Zhao-Hui Ni, Wen-Hu Liu, Yu Na, Jiu-Yang Zhao, Zhi-Yong Guo, Hong-Guang Zheng, Wei Shi, Geng-Ru Jiang, Guang-Yan Cai, Xiang-Mei Chen, Xue-Ying Cao, Ya-Ni He, Jian-Hui Zhou, Shi-Ren Sun, Li-Ning Miao, Wen Chen, Jing-Ai Fang, Ming Wang, Nian-Song Wang, Hong-Li Lin, Jian Liu, Zhao-Hui Ni, Wen-Hu Liu, Yu Na, Jiu-Yang Zhao, Zhi-Yong Guo, Hong-Guang Zheng, Wei Shi, Geng-Ru Jiang, Guang-Yan Cai, Xiang-Mei Chen

Abstract

Background: Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) can cater to individual needs, provide treatment while asleep, take into account the adequacy of dialysis, and improve the quality of life. Currently, independent research and development of APD machines made in China are more conducive to patients. A randomized, multicenter, crossover study was conducted by comparing an APD machine made in China with an imported machine. The safety, effectiveness, and manipulability of the two machines were compared.

Methods: Two hundred and sixty patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) on a regular basis in 18 centers between August 2015 and February 2016 were included. The inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years and PD ≥30 days. The exclusion criteria were as follows: hemodialysis; exit site or tunnel infection; and peritonitis ≤30 days. The patients were randomly divided into Group A, who were first treated with a FM machine made in China, then changed to an imported machine; and Group B, who were treated using the reverse sequence. APD treatment was performed with 10 L/10 h and 5 cycles of exchange. After 72 h, the daily peritoneal Kt/V, the accuracy of the injection rate, accuracy of the injection temperature, safety, and manipulability of the machine were assessed. Noninferiority test was conducted between the two groups.

Results: The daily peritoneal Kt/V in the APD machine made in China and the imported APD machine were 0.17 (0.14, 0.25) and 0.16 (0.13, 0.23), respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups (Z = 0.15, P = 0.703). The lower limit of the daily Kt/V difference between the two groups was 0.0069, which was greater than the noninferiority value of -0.07 in this study. The accuracy of the injection rate and injection temperature was 89.7% and 91.5%, respectively, in the domestic APD machine, which were both slightly better than the accuracy rates of 84.0% and 86.8% in the imported APD machine (89.7% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.2466; 91.5% vs. 86.8%, P = 0.0954). Therefore, the APD machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. The fuselage of the imported APD machine was space-saving, while the APD machine made in China was superior with respect to body mobility, man-machine dialog operation, alarm control, and patient information recognition.

Conclusions: The FM machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. In addition, the FM machine made in China had better operability.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02525497; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02525497&cntry=& state=&city=&dist=.

Keywords: Automated Peritoneal Dialysis; Effectiveness; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Dialysis Machine; Safety.

Conflict of interest statement

Morestep and Baxter Inc. support data collection for this research

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic flow of this study.

References

    1. Diaz-Buxo JA, Suki WN. Automated peritoneal dialysis. In: Gokal R, Nolph KD, editors. The Textbook of Peritoneal Dialysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1994. pp. 399–418.
    1. McComb J, Morton AR, Singer MA, Hopman WM, MacKenzie T. Impact of portable APD on patient perception of health-related quality of life. Adv Perit Dial. 1997;13:137–40.
    1. Lai KN, Lui SL, Chan DT. Automated peritoneal dialysis in Asia. Perit Dial Int. 1999;19(Suppl 2):S125–9.
    1. Bro S, Bjorner JB, Tofte-Jensen P, Klem S, Almtoft B, Danielsen H, et al. Aprospective, randomized multicenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int. 1999;19:526–33.
    1. Vega ND, Gallego R, Oliva E, Henriquez F, Palop L, Divino Filho JC, et al. Nocturnal ultrafiltration profiles in patients on APD: Impact on fluid and solute transport. Kidney Int Suppl. 2008;108:S94–101. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002609.
    1. Zhang L, Wang F, Wang L, Wang W, Liu B, Liu J, et al. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in China: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2012;379:815–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60033-6.
    1. Liu ZH. Nephrology in China. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013;9:523–8. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2013.146.
    1. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: A systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385:1975–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61601-9.
    1. Chen XM, Zhou JH. Current status and future of peritoneal dialysis technology in China (in Chinese) Chin J Pract Internal Med. 2013;33:413–5.
    1. Tang CH, Wu YT, Huang SY, Chen HH, Wu MJ, Hsu BG, et al. Economic costs of automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Taiwan: A combined survey and retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015067. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015067.
    1. Nayak KS, Subhramanyam SV, Pavankumar N, Antony S, Sarfaraz Khan MA. Emergent start peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal disease: Outcomes and advantages. Blood Purif. 2018;45:313–9. doi: 10.1159/000486543.
    1. Moist LM, Fenton S, Kim JS, Gill JS, Ivis F, de Sa E, et al. Canadian organ replacement register (CORR): Reflecting the past and embracing the future. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2014;1:26. doi: 10.1186/s40697-014-0026-5.
    1. United States Renal Data System.2014 USRDS Annual Data Report: end-Stage Renal Disease [DB/OL] Vol. 2. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; 2014. [Last accessed on 2015 Apr 08]. Available from: .
    1. Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimbürger O, Krediet R, et al. European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis 7 Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(Suppl 9):ix24–7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfi1121.
    1. Samad N, Fan SL. Comparison of change in peritoneal function in patients on continuous ambulatory PD vs.automated PD. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37:627–32. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2016.00101.
    1. Beduschi Gde C, Figueiredo AE, Olandoski M, Pecoits-Filho R, Barretti P, de Moraes TP, et al. Automated peritoneal dialysis is associated with better survival rates compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: A Propensity score matching analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0134047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134047.
    1. Fischbach M, Zaloszyc A, Schaefer B, Schmitt C. Adapted automated peritoneal dialysis. Adv Perit Dial. 2014;30:94–7.
    1. Brandes JC, Packard WJ, Watters SK, Fritsche C. Optimization of dialysate flow and mass transfer during automated peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1995;25:603–10. doi: 10.1016/0272-6386(95)90131-0.
    1. Makhija D, Alscher MD, Becker S, D'Alonzo S, Mehrotra R, Wong L, et al. Remote monitoring of automated peritoneal dialysis patients: Assessing clinical and economic value. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24:315–23. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0046.
    1. Drepper VJ, Martin PY, Chopard CS, Sloand JA. Remote patient management in automated peritoneal dialysis: A promising new tool. Perit Dial Int. 2018;38:76–8. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2017.00054.
    1. Petersson I, Lennerling A. Experiences of living with assisted peritoneal dialysis – A qualitative study. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37:605–12. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2017.00045.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera