Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on April 19, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008 23(10):3290-3294; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn213
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/10/3290    most recent
gfn213v1
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 Similar articles in this journal
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lobbedez, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ryckelynck, J.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lobbedez, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ryckelynck, J.-P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



Is rapid initiation of peritoneal dialysis feasible in unplanned dialysis patients? A single-centre experience

Thierry Lobbedez, Angelique Lecouf, Maxence Ficheux, Patrick Henri, Bruno Hurault de Ligny and Jean-Philippe Ryckelynck

Nephrology Department, CHU Clemenceau, Avenue G Clemenceau, 14033 Caen CEDEX, France

Thierry Lobbedez, Nephrology Department, CHU Clemenceau, Avenue G Clemenceau, 14033 Caen CEDEX, France. E-mail: lobbedez-t{at}chu-caen.fr



  Abstract

Background. Starting dialysis in an unplanned manner is a frequent situation in a dialysis centre even for patients with a regular nephrology follow-up. For no clear reason, chronic haemodialysis (HD) is more frequently used than peritoneal dialysis for unplanned dialysis patients.

Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a dialysis policy dedicated to unplanned dialysis patients. The aim of this policy was to increase the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in an attempt to reduce the need for tunnelled catheter.

Methods. One hundred seventy-one patients from a single centre, who started dialysis between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2006, were prospectively followed until 31 December 2006. Unplanned dialysis patients were defined as patients entering in dialysis with no vascular access or peritoneal dialysis catheter. PD was presented as a modality of choice for renal replacement therapy to avoid the need for a tunnelled HD catheter.

Results. There were 60 unplanned dialysis patients during the study period. Among these patients, 34 agreed to be treated by PD. Compared with unplanned peritoneal dialysis patients, unplanned haemodialysis patients had a greater modified Charlson's comorbidity index (5.9 ± 2.4 versus 4.4 ± 1.9, P < 0.05). The mean duration of the temporary catheter period was 32 ± 29 days (median: 24 days) for haemodialysis patients compared with 26 ± 21 days (median: 25 days) for peritoneal dialysis patients (P = NS). The initial hospitalization duration was similar in haemodialysis patients and peritoneal dialysis patients (24 ± 28 versus 30 ± 33 days; median value: 17 versus 20 days, P = NS). PD was started 8.6 ± 10 days (median: 4 days) after catheter insertion. A tunnelled catheter was used only in three patients until peritoneal dialysis was initiated. Acute automated peritoneal dialysis was used in 19 patients. Among 26 haemodialysis patients, 23 were dialyzed through a tunnelled catheter. Of these 23 patients, 15 were successfully converted to fistula. Median time for fistula creation was 2.6 months after dialysis initiation; median time for fistula utilization was 4.4 months. Actuarial patients survival at 1 year was 79% on haemodialysis compared with 83% on peritoneal dialysis (P = NS). After adjustment of the initial modified Charlson's comorbidity index, dialysis modality had no impact on patient's survival. There was no significant difference between haemodialysis patients and peritoneal dialysis patients regarding survival free of re-hospitalization. Actuarial survival free of peritonitis was 73% at 6 months and 58% at 1 year.

Conclusion. Peritoneal dialysis is a safe and efficient alternative to haemodialysis for unplanned dialysis patients. Peritoneal dialysis offers the advantage of reducing the need for tunnelled catheter in unplanned dialysis patients.

Keywords: catheter; haemodialysis; peritoneal dialysis

Received for publication: 5.10.07
Accepted in revised form: 25. 3.08


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NDT PlusHome page
G. Baer, N. Lameire, and W. Van Biesen
Late referral of patients with end-stage renal disease: an in-depth review and suggestions for further actions
NDT Plus, April 29, 2009; (2009) sfp050v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
pdiHome page
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]



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.