Background: Differences in symptom burden, treatment satisfaction and autonomy between patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis could be reflected by a difference in symptom... Show moreBackground: Differences in symptom burden, treatment satisfaction and autonomy between patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis could be reflected by a difference in symptom dimensions of anxiety and depression. The aim of this study is to assess differences in prevalence and symptom dimensions of anxiety and depression between patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis. Methods: Baseline data from the Depression Related Factors and Outcomes in Dialysis Patients With Various Ethnicities and Races Study were used. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory- second edition. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare anxiety and depression total scores and somatic and subjective/cognitive symptom dimension scores between patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis, adjusted for potential confounders. Results: In total, 84 patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and 601 patients receiving haemodialysis were included. Clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression were present in respectively 22% and 43% of the patients, with no differences between dialysis modality. Both modalities scored high on the somatic symptom dimensions and on individual somatic items. Almost all patients reported symptoms related to loss of energy and sleep. Conclusion: No differences in symptom dimensions of anxiety and depression were found between patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis. The high prevalence of somatic symptom dimensions in both groups underscores the possible interaction between somatic and psychiatric symptoms in dialysis patients and the need for early recognition and treatment of symptoms of anxiety and depression regardless of treatment modalities. Show less
Background: Technique survival is a core outcome for peritoneal dialysis (PD), according to Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis. This study aimed to identify modifiable causes... Show moreBackground: Technique survival is a core outcome for peritoneal dialysis (PD), according to Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis. This study aimed to identify modifiable causes and risk factors of technique failure in a large Dutch cohort using standardised definitions. Methods: Patients who participated in the retrospective Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes cohort study and started PD between 2012 and 2016 were included and followed until 1 January 2017. The primary outcome was technique failure, defined as transfer to in-centre haemodialysis for >= 30 days or death. Death-censored technique failure was analysed as secondary outcome. Cox regression models and competing risk models were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and technique failure. Results: A total of 695 patients were included, of whom 318 experienced technique failure during follow-up. Technique failure rate in the first year was 29%, while the death-censored technique failure rate was 23%. Infections were the most common modifiable cause for technique failure, accounting for 20% of all causes during the entire follow-up. Leakage and catheter problems were important causes within the first 6 months of PD treatment (both accounting for 15%). APD use was associated with a lower risk of technique failure (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.83). Conclusion: Infections, leakage and catheter problems were important modifiable causes for technique failure. As the first-year death-censored technique failure rate remains high, future studies should focus on infection prevention and catheter access to improve technique survival. Show less
Sluijs, A.V. van der; Jaarsveld, B.C. van; Allen, J.; Altabas, K.; Bechade, C.; Bonenkamp, A.A.; ... ; Abrahams, A.C. 2021
Background: In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously.... Show moreBackground: In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously. Assisted PD programmes are available in most European countries, but the percentage of patients receiving assisted PD varies considerably. Hence, we assessed which factors are associated with the availability of an assisted PD programme at a centre level and whether the availability of this programme is associated with proportion of home dialysis patients. Methods: An online survey was sent to healthcare professionals of European nephrology units. After selecting one respondent per centre, the associations were explored by chi (2) tests and (ordinal) logistic regression. Results: In total, 609 respondents completed the survey. Subsequently, 288 respondents from individual centres were identified; 58% worked in a centre with an assisted PD programme. Factors associated with availability of an assisted PD programme were Western European and Scandinavian countries (OR: 5.73; 95% CI: 3.07-10.68), non-academic centres (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.09-3.72) and centres with a dedicated team for education (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.35-6.11). Most Eastern & Central European respondents reported that the proportion of incident and prevalent home dialysis patients was <10% (72% and 63%), while 27% of Scandinavian respondents reported a proportion of >30% for both incident and prevalent home dialysis patients. Availability of an assisted PD programme was associated with a higher incidence (cumulative OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21-3.01) and prevalence (cumulative OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.76-4.47) of patients on home dialysis. Conclusions: Assisted PD was more commonly offered among non-academic centres with a dedicated team for education across Europe, especially among Western European and Scandinavian countries where higher incidence and prevalence of home dialysis patients was reported. Show less
Barreto, D.L.; Hoekstra, T.; Halbesma, N.; Leegte, M.; Boeschoten, E.W.; Dekker, F.W.; ... ; NECOSAD Study Grp 2015
Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure is high compared to hemodialysis (HD). There is a lack of data on the impact of duration of PD treatment on technique survival and on whether... Show moreBackground: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique failure is high compared to hemodialysis (HD). There is a lack of data on the impact of duration of PD treatment on technique survival and on whether there is a difference in risk factors with respect to early and late failure. The aim of this study was to clarify these issues by performing a time-dependent analysis of PD technique and patient survival in a large cohort of incident PD patients. Methods: We analyzed 709 incident PD patients participating in the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD), who started their treatment between 1997 and 2007. We compared technique and patient survival on PD in 4 periods of follow-up: within the first 3 months, and after 3 - 12 months, 12 - 24 months, and 24 - 36 months of treatment. Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze survival on PD and technique failure. Risk factors were also identified by comparing patients that were transferred to HD with those that remained on PD. Incidence rates for every cause of dropout for each period of follow-up were calculated to establish their trends with respect to PD treatment duration. Results: There was a significant increase in transplantation rate after the first year of treatment. The rate of switching to HD was highest during the first 3 months and decreased afterward. One-, 2- and 3-year technique survival was 87%, 76%, and 66%, respectively. Age, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease appeared to be risk factors for death on PD or switch to HD: a 1-year increase in age was associated with a relative risk (RR) of PD failure of 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.003 - 1.06]; for diabetes, RR of stopping PD after 3 months of treatment increased from 1.8 (95% CI 1.1 - 3) during the first year to 2.2 (95% CI 1.3 - 4) after the second year; cardiovascular disease had a major impact in the earliest period (RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 - 5) and had a stable influence further on (RR 2, 95% CI 1.1 - 3.5). Loss of 1 mL/minute residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) appeared to be a significant predictor of PD failure after 3 months of treatment, but within the first 2 years, RR was 1.1 (95% CI 1.04 - 1.25). Conclusions: In The Netherlands, transplantation is a main reason to stop PD treatment. The incidence of PD technique failure is at its highest during the earliest months after treatment initiation and decreases later due to fewer catheter and abdominal complications as well as less influence of psychosocial factors. Risk factors for PD discontinuation are those responsible for patient survival: age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and rGFR. Show less
