PowerPoint Slides for: A Comparison between Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis and Automatic Peritoneal Dialysis on Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis
datasetposted on 24.05.2017, 06:15 by Wang C., Fu X., Yang Y., Deng J., Zhang H., Deng H., Lu J., Peng Y., Liu H., Liu F., Liu Y.
Background: Urgent-start dialysis is a major problem for incident dialysis population. Urgent start on hemodialysis is associated with an increased risk of infectious or mechanical complications, and its mortality is equal to or higher than that of urgent start on peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, compared to patients starting PD in a planned setting, those on urgent-started PD have an increased risk of mechanical complications and lower technique survival. Methods: In this study, 101 adult incident dialysis patients (≥18 years old) who underwent Tenckhoff catheter implantation were enrolled. All of the patients were grouped according to the urgent PD mode: the intermittent PD (IPD) or automatic PD (APD) group, and patients were followed for 1 year. The paired or independent t test was used to analyze the change of laboratory variables. Pearson chi-square test was applied to compare the short outcome between the 2 groups. Results: When PD was treated for 7 days and 1 month, the APD group has the lower serum potassium and phosphorus levels than the IPD group. The incidence of catheter dysfunction was significantly lower in the APD group. The morbidity of infection associated with PD in the first year was lower in the APD group despite no significant difference existing. The technique survival and patient survival rate have no evident difference between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Compared to IPD, urgent start on APD could reduce the risk of mechanical complication, which could be considered a gentle, safe, and feasible alternative to urgent start on IPD.