Nephrol Dial Transplant (2001) 16: 604-607
© 2001 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association
Comparison of infectious complications in peritoneal dialysis patients using either a twin-bag system or automated peritoneal dialysis
1 Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital 2 National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Background. Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and twin-bag (TB) systems are two major peritoneal dialysis (PD) modalities. Published data comparing the infectious complications of these modalities is limited.
Subjects and methods. Ninety-five patients using APD (the APD group) and 117 patients using TB system (the TB group) were recruited. Among them, 35 patients used both modalities. The two groups’ clinical characteristics, incidences of infectious complications, and the time intervals to first PD-related infection were compared.
Results. Clinical characteristics, incidence of exit-site infection (ESI), and time intervals to first ESI were similar in the TB and APD groups. The incidence of peritonitis in the APD group (1.22 episodes/100 patient-months) was significantly (P<0.001) lower than that of the TB group (2.28 episodes/100 patient-months). Using the Cox proportional hazard model, APD was found to have a lower risk of peritonitis relative to TB systems, with marginal significance (RR 0.58, P=0.051).
Conclusion. APD was found to have a lower peritonitis rate than the TB system. Since reducing the peritonitis rate helps to maintain technical survival during PD, from this viewpoint, APD may be preferred for patients undergoing PD, unless contraindicated.
Keywords: automated peritoneal dialysis; exit-site infection; peritoneal dialysis; peritonitis; twin-bag system
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Tun-Jun Tsai, MD, PhD, Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No.7, Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan, ROC.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. J. Nessim, J. M. Bargman, P. C. Austin, R. Nisenbaum, and S. V. Jassal Predictors of Peritonitis in Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis: Results of a Large, Prospective Canadian Database Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2009; 4(7): 1195 - 1200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Mactier PERITONITIS IS STILL THE ACHILLES' HEEL OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS Perit. Dial. Int., May 1, 2009; 29(3): 262 - 266. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Liakopoulos and N. Dombros PATIENT SELECTION FOR AUTOMATED PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: FOR WHOM, WHEN? Perit. Dial. Int., February 1, 2009; 29(Supplement_2): S102 - S107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. T. Krediet 30 YEARS OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS DEVELOPMENT: THE PAST AND THE FUTURE Perit. Dial. Int., June 1, 2007; 27(Supplement_2): S35 - S41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Basile and F. D. Padova Comparison of peritonitis incidence in CAPD and automated peritoneal dialysis Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2001; 16(9): 1957 - 1958. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|