Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on September 17, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2007 22(10):2991-2998; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm515
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/10/2991    most recent
gfm515v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in NDT
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by MacLeod, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by MacLeod, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Kannaiyan S. Rabindranath1, James Adams1, Tariq Z. Ali2, Conal Daly3, Luke Vale4 and Alison M. MacLeod2

1Renal Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, 2Department. of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 3Renal Unit, Western Infirmary, Glasgow and 4Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Correspondence to: Kannaiyan S. Rabindranath, MBBS, MRCP, Renal Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK. Email: ksrabi{at}yahoo.co.uk



  Abstract

Background. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with all forms of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) was performed to assess their comparative clinical effectiveness.

Methods. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, were searched for relevant RCTs. Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results. Three trials (139 patients) were identified. APD when compared to CAPD was found to have significantly lower peritonitis rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35–0.83) and hospitalization rates (one trial, 82 patients, rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.93) but not exit-site infection rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.56–1.76). However no differences were detected between APD and CAPD in respect to risk of mortality (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51–4.37), peritonitis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50–1.11), switching from the original peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality to a different dialysis modality including an alternative form of PD (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25–1.02), PD catheter removal (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27–1.48) and hospital admissions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43–2.17). Patients on APD were found to have significantly more time for work, family and social activities.

Conclusions. APD appears to be more beneficial than CAPD, in terms of reducing peritonitis rates and with respect to certain social issues that impact on patients’ quality of life. Further, adequately powered trials are required to confirm the benefits for APD found in this review and detect differences with respect to other clinically important outcomes that may have been missed by the trials included in this review due to their small size and short follow-up periods.

Keywords: ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (APD); continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; (CAPD), systematic review; meta-analysis; clinical outcomes; peritonitis


This work was performed at Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Received for publication: 15.11.06
Accepted in revised form: 4. 7.07


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in NDT:

Randomized controlled trials in PD
Peter G. Blake
NDT 2007 22: 2746-2748. [Extract] [Full Text]  

In this issue ...

NDT 2007 22: i. [Extract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
K. S. Rabindranath
Reply
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1770 - 1770.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
S. J. Nessim and J. M. Bargman
Occurrence of peritonitis in APD versus CAPD: methodologic problems
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1769 - 1770.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. G. Blake
Randomized controlled trials in PD
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 2007; 22(10): 2746 - 2748.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.