Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program

Background Many patients start renal replacement therapy urgently on in-center hemodialysis via a central venous catheter, which is considered suboptimal. An alternative approach to manage these patients is to start them on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In this report, we describe the first reported Can...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Peritoneal dialysis international 2016-03, Vol.36 (2), p.171-176
Hauptverfasser: Alkatheeri, Ali M.A., Blake, Peter G., Gray, Daryl, Jain, Arsh K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 176
container_issue 2
container_start_page 171
container_title Peritoneal dialysis international
container_volume 36
creator Alkatheeri, Ali M.A.
Blake, Peter G.
Gray, Daryl
Jain, Arsh K.
description Background Many patients start renal replacement therapy urgently on in-center hemodialysis via a central venous catheter, which is considered suboptimal. An alternative approach to manage these patients is to start them on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In this report, we describe the first reported Canadian experience with an urgent-start PD program. Additionally we reviewed the literature in this area. Methods In this prospective observational study, we report on our experience in a single academic center. This program started in July 2010. We included patients who initiated PD urgently, that is within 2 weeks of catheter insertion. We followed all incident PD patients until October 2013 for mechanical and infectious complications. Peritoneal dialysis catheters were inserted either percutaneously or laparoscopically and dialysis was initiated in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. Results Thirty patients were started on urgent PD during our study period. Follow-up ranged from 28 to 1,050 days. Twenty insertions (66.7 %) were done percutaneously and 10 (33.3%) were laparoscopic. Dialysis was initiated within 2 weeks (range: 0 – 13 days, median = 6 days). Twenty-four patients (80%) started PD in an outpatient setting and 6 patients (20%) required immediate inpatient PD start. Three patients (10%) developed a minor peri-catheter leak during the first week of training that was managed conservatively. There were no episodes of peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection during the first 4 weeks post-insertion. Four patients (13.3 %) from the percutaneous insertion group and 2 patients (6.7%) from laparoscopic insertions developed catheter dysfunction due to migration, which was managed by repositioning, without need for catheter replacement or modality switch. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other studies in this area and demonstrate that urgent-start PD is an acceptable and safe alternative to hemodialysis in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access.
doi_str_mv 10.3747/pdi.2014.00148
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4803362</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.3747_pdi.2014.00148</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.3747_pdi.2014.00148</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fef719c03b5ce3caec8a3e454e6b637d0663225cf1cacc3bac1ae7f6573f57d73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9LwzAYhoMoOuauHiV3aU2aNEkvgsyfMHE4dw5f07RGtnYknbD_3szp0IOXfIc87_t9PAidUZIyyeXlqnJpRihPSXzUARpQSVXCGeGHaEBUIRIliDpBoxBcSTgvBOdSHaOTTMS8YnyAnmZrY2wIuKvx3De27ZNZD77HU-td37UWFvjGwWITXMCuxYAnEDE8hhYqBy1-sW1Epr5rPCxP0VENi2BH33OI5ne3r-OHZPJ8_zi-niSGFaxPaltLWhjCytxYZsAaBczynFtRxssqIgTLstzU1IAxrARDwcpa5JLVuawkG6KrXe9qXS5tZeLZHhZ65d0S_EZ34PTfn9a96ab70FwRxkQWC9JdgfFdCN7W-ywleutWR7d661Z_uY2B898b9_iPyQhc7IAAjdXv3dpHL-G_uk_vI4St</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A. ; Blake, Peter G. ; Gray, Daryl ; Jain, Arsh K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A. ; Blake, Peter G. ; Gray, Daryl ; Jain, Arsh K.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Many patients start renal replacement therapy urgently on in-center hemodialysis via a central venous catheter, which is considered suboptimal. An alternative approach to manage these patients is to start them on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In this report, we describe the first reported Canadian experience with an urgent-start PD program. Additionally we reviewed the literature in this area. Methods In this prospective observational study, we report on our experience in a single academic center. This program started in July 2010. We included patients who initiated PD urgently, that is within 2 weeks of catheter insertion. We followed all incident PD patients until October 2013 for mechanical and infectious complications. Peritoneal dialysis catheters were inserted either percutaneously or laparoscopically and dialysis was initiated in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. Results Thirty patients were started on urgent PD during our study period. Follow-up ranged from 28 to 1,050 days. Twenty insertions (66.7 %) were done percutaneously and 10 (33.3%) were laparoscopic. Dialysis was initiated within 2 weeks (range: 0 – 13 days, median = 6 days). Twenty-four patients (80%) started PD in an outpatient setting and 6 patients (20%) required immediate inpatient PD start. Three patients (10%) developed a minor peri-catheter leak during the first week of training that was managed conservatively. There were no episodes of peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection during the first 4 weeks post-insertion. Four patients (13.3 %) from the percutaneous insertion group and 2 patients (6.7%) from laparoscopic insertions developed catheter dysfunction due to migration, which was managed by repositioning, without need for catheter replacement or modality switch. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other studies in this area and demonstrate that urgent-start PD is an acceptable and safe alternative to hemodialysis in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0896-8608</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1718-4304</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2014.00148</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26374834</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ambulatory Care - methods ; Canada ; Cohort Studies ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Original ; Peritoneal Dialysis - adverse effects ; Peritoneal Dialysis - methods ; Program Evaluation ; Prospective Studies ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; Time Factors ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Peritoneal dialysis international, 2016-03, Vol.36 (2), p.171-176</ispartof><rights>2016 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fef719c03b5ce3caec8a3e454e6b637d0663225cf1cacc3bac1ae7f6573f57d73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fef719c03b5ce3caec8a3e454e6b637d0663225cf1cacc3bac1ae7f6573f57d73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803362/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803362/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374834$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blake, Peter G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Daryl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jain, Arsh K.</creatorcontrib><title>Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program</title><title>Peritoneal dialysis international</title><addtitle>Perit Dial Int</addtitle><description>Background Many patients start renal replacement therapy urgently on in-center hemodialysis via a central venous catheter, which is considered suboptimal. An alternative approach to manage these patients is to start them on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In this report, we describe the first reported Canadian experience with an urgent-start PD program. Additionally we reviewed the literature in this area. Methods In this prospective observational study, we report on our experience in a single academic center. This program started in July 2010. We included patients who initiated PD urgently, that is within 2 weeks of catheter insertion. We followed all incident PD patients until October 2013 for mechanical and infectious complications. Peritoneal dialysis catheters were inserted either percutaneously or laparoscopically and dialysis was initiated in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. Results Thirty patients were started on urgent PD during our study period. Follow-up ranged from 28 to 1,050 days. Twenty insertions (66.7 %) were done percutaneously and 10 (33.3%) were laparoscopic. Dialysis was initiated within 2 weeks (range: 0 – 13 days, median = 6 days). Twenty-four patients (80%) started PD in an outpatient setting and 6 patients (20%) required immediate inpatient PD start. Three patients (10%) developed a minor peri-catheter leak during the first week of training that was managed conservatively. There were no episodes of peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection during the first 4 weeks post-insertion. Four patients (13.3 %) from the percutaneous insertion group and 2 patients (6.7%) from laparoscopic insertions developed catheter dysfunction due to migration, which was managed by repositioning, without need for catheter replacement or modality switch. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other studies in this area and demonstrate that urgent-start PD is an acceptable and safe alternative to hemodialysis in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ambulatory Care - methods</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Peritoneal Dialysis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Peritoneal Dialysis - methods</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0896-8608</issn><issn>1718-4304</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM9LwzAYhoMoOuauHiV3aU2aNEkvgsyfMHE4dw5f07RGtnYknbD_3szp0IOXfIc87_t9PAidUZIyyeXlqnJpRihPSXzUARpQSVXCGeGHaEBUIRIliDpBoxBcSTgvBOdSHaOTTMS8YnyAnmZrY2wIuKvx3De27ZNZD77HU-td37UWFvjGwWITXMCuxYAnEDE8hhYqBy1-sW1Epr5rPCxP0VENi2BH33OI5ne3r-OHZPJ8_zi-niSGFaxPaltLWhjCytxYZsAaBczynFtRxssqIgTLstzU1IAxrARDwcpa5JLVuawkG6KrXe9qXS5tZeLZHhZ65d0S_EZ34PTfn9a96ab70FwRxkQWC9JdgfFdCN7W-ywleutWR7d661Z_uY2B898b9_iPyQhc7IAAjdXv3dpHL-G_uk_vI4St</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A.</creator><creator>Blake, Peter G.</creator><creator>Gray, Daryl</creator><creator>Jain, Arsh K.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Multimed Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program</title><author>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A. ; Blake, Peter G. ; Gray, Daryl ; Jain, Arsh K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fef719c03b5ce3caec8a3e454e6b637d0663225cf1cacc3bac1ae7f6573f57d73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ambulatory Care - methods</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Peritoneal Dialysis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Peritoneal Dialysis - methods</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blake, Peter G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, Daryl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jain, Arsh K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Peritoneal dialysis international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alkatheeri, Ali M.A.</au><au>Blake, Peter G.</au><au>Gray, Daryl</au><au>Jain, Arsh K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program</atitle><jtitle>Peritoneal dialysis international</jtitle><addtitle>Perit Dial Int</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>171</spage><epage>176</epage><pages>171-176</pages><issn>0896-8608</issn><eissn>1718-4304</eissn><abstract>Background Many patients start renal replacement therapy urgently on in-center hemodialysis via a central venous catheter, which is considered suboptimal. An alternative approach to manage these patients is to start them on peritoneal dialysis (PD). In this report, we describe the first reported Canadian experience with an urgent-start PD program. Additionally we reviewed the literature in this area. Methods In this prospective observational study, we report on our experience in a single academic center. This program started in July 2010. We included patients who initiated PD urgently, that is within 2 weeks of catheter insertion. We followed all incident PD patients until October 2013 for mechanical and infectious complications. Peritoneal dialysis catheters were inserted either percutaneously or laparoscopically and dialysis was initiated in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. Results Thirty patients were started on urgent PD during our study period. Follow-up ranged from 28 to 1,050 days. Twenty insertions (66.7 %) were done percutaneously and 10 (33.3%) were laparoscopic. Dialysis was initiated within 2 weeks (range: 0 – 13 days, median = 6 days). Twenty-four patients (80%) started PD in an outpatient setting and 6 patients (20%) required immediate inpatient PD start. Three patients (10%) developed a minor peri-catheter leak during the first week of training that was managed conservatively. There were no episodes of peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection during the first 4 weeks post-insertion. Four patients (13.3 %) from the percutaneous insertion group and 2 patients (6.7%) from laparoscopic insertions developed catheter dysfunction due to migration, which was managed by repositioning, without need for catheter replacement or modality switch. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other studies in this area and demonstrate that urgent-start PD is an acceptable and safe alternative to hemodialysis in patients who need to start dialysis urgently without established dialysis access.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>26374834</pmid><doi>10.3747/pdi.2014.00148</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0896-8608
ispartof Peritoneal dialysis international, 2016-03, Vol.36 (2), p.171-176
issn 0896-8608
1718-4304
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4803362
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory Care - methods
Canada
Cohort Studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Original
Peritoneal Dialysis - adverse effects
Peritoneal Dialysis - methods
Program Evaluation
Prospective Studies
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Time Factors
Young Adult
title Success of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis in a Large Canadian Renal Program
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T20%3A14%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Success%20of%20Urgent-Start%20Peritoneal%20Dialysis%20in%20a%20Large%20Canadian%20Renal%20Program&rft.jtitle=Peritoneal%20dialysis%20international&rft.au=Alkatheeri,%20Ali%20M.A.&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=171&rft.epage=176&rft.pages=171-176&rft.issn=0896-8608&rft.eissn=1718-4304&rft_id=info:doi/10.3747/pdi.2014.00148&rft_dat=%3Csage_pubme%3E10.3747_pdi.2014.00148%3C/sage_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/26374834&rft_sage_id=10.3747_pdi.2014.00148&rfr_iscdi=true