BackgroundPolycystic kidney disease (PKD) is the most frequent hereditary cause of chronic kidney disease. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is often avoided for patients with PKD because of the suspected risk of mechanical and infectious complications. Only a few studies have analyzed the outcome of PKD patients on PD with sometimes conflicting results. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate outcomes of patients with PKD treated by PD.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed examining all studies which included “Polycystic kidney disease” and “Peritoneal dialysis” in their titles, excluding commentaries, letters to the authors and abstracts. PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and Scopus were searched to December 31st 2017. The primary outcome was overall patient survival. Additional outcomes were PD technique survival, incidence of peritonitis and incidence of abdominal wall hernia.Results9 studies published between 1998 and 2016 were included for analysis with a total of 7,197 patients including 882 PKD patients. Overall survival of PKD patients was found to be better compared to non-PKD patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54–0.92]). There were no statistical differences between PKD and non-PKD patients in terms of peritonitis (OR = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66–1.12]) and technical survival (HR = 0.98 [95% CI, 0.83–1.16]). There was an increased risk of hernia in PKD patients (OR = 2.28 [95% CI, 1.26–4.12]).ConclusionsPKD is associated with a better global survival, an increased risk of abdominal hernia, but no differences in peritonitis rate or technical survival were found. PD is a safe dialysis modality for PKD patients. Properly designed controlled studies are needed to determine whether all PKD patients are eligible for PD or whether some specific criteria should be determined.
According to our results, PD is proposed to a selected population of ADPKD patients, PD does not have a negative impact on ADPKD patients' overall survival and PD technique failure is not influenced by ADPKD status. Therefore PD is a reasonable option for ADPKD patients.
Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is reported to be underused in the autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) population because doctors fear technical failure caused by reduced abdominal space and high intraperitoneal pressure (IPP).
Methods:We designed a multicenter retrospective study to be carried out in 15 French centers recruiting 60 patients with ADPKD treated with PD to identify factors associated with IPP. Inclusion criteria were start of PD between 2010 and 2017, available tomodensitometry, and IPP measurement in the first year of dialysis. The clinical and radiological data for each patient were reviewed by the same operator. Total kidney volume (TKV), liver volume, and the volume of the abdominal cavity were measured using contouring.Results: TKV and the volume of the abdominal cavity in women and men were, respectively, 2397 ml versus 3758 ml and 9402 ml versus 12,920 ml. In the univariate analysis, IPP was significantly and positively associated with body surface area (P ¼ 0.0024), body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.0001), the volume of the abdominal cavity (P ¼ 0.0005), and the volume of the dialysate infused in the peritoneal cavity (IPV) (P ¼ 0.0108). In the multivariate analysis, only BMI was still significantly associated with IPP (P ¼ 0.0004) Conclusions: Our results identified BMI as the main factor linked to IPP in patients with ADPKD. Despite a reliable assessment of the volume of their organs we did not find any correlation between liver and kidney volumes and IPP. To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to identify factors associated with IPP in patients with ADPKD on PD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.