Background Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) has been proved benefit from remote monitoring (RM), but evidences are limited. In this study, we compared clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in two group of patients undergoing APD, with and without exposure of RM. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study, comparing outcomes in two groups of APD patients monitored during 6 months with RM (group A: n = 35) or standard care (group B: n = 38 patients). In our clinical practice, we assign the RM system to patients who live more distant from the PD center or difficulty in moving. We evaluated emergency visits, hospitalizations, peritonitis, overhydration, and dropout. QoL was assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF). We included four additional questions focused on patient's perception of monitoring, safety and timely problems solution (Do you think that home-therapy monitoring could interfere with your privacy? Do you think that your dialysis sessions are monitored frequently enough? Do you think that dialysis-related issues are solved timely? Do you feel comfortable carrying out your home-based therapy?). Results The case group presented a higher comorbidity score, according to Charlson Comorbidity Index (group A: 5.0; IQR 4.0-8.0 versus group B: 4.0; IQR 3.0-6.0) (p = 0.042). The results in group A showed a reduction in the urgent visits due to acute overhydration (group A: 0.17 ± 0.45 versus group B: 0.66 ± 1.36) (p: 0.042) and in the number of disease-specific hospitalization (group A n = 2.0; 18.2% versus group B n = 7.0; 77.8%) (p = 0.022). We did not find any difference between the two groups in terms of hospitalization because of all-cause, peritonitis, overhydration, and dropout. The analysis of KDQOL-SF subscales was similar in the two groups; on the contrary, the answers of our pointed questions have showed a significant difference between the two groups (group A: 100 IQR 87.5-100.0 versus group B 87.5; IQR 75.0-100.0) (p: 0.018). Conclusion RM improved clinical outcomes in PD patients, reducing the emergency visits and the hospitalizations, related to nephrological problems, especially in patients with higher comorbidity score. The acceptance and satisfaction of care were better in patients monitored with RM than with standard APD.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is common in the elderly population, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) is often required. However, in this particular subgroup of patients, the choice between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) is often not an easy decision to make. Published literature has adequately demonstrated that PD prevalence is significantly less than HD across all patient age groups despite several advantages. We also know that elderly patients are less likely to complete a PD assessment, due to both medical and social barriers. Additionally, elderly patients are often reluctant to go ahead with PD despite being eligible PD candidates, mainly due to the fear of performing self-therapy. Recently, many new assisted PD (asPD) programs have cropped up in several countries. The main aim of these programs is to overcome barriers to PD and to promote PD utilization among elderly and non-self-sufficient patients. Although asPD has proven to be associated with good clinical results, there still remain concerns about its greater use. In this review, we will first describe an ideal asPD model and then enumerate examples of strategies and outcomes associated with successful asPD programs worldwide.

Background: Several methods have been developed to assess the hydration status in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients. The aim of this study was to compare body bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) with ultrasound (US) lung comet score (ULCs), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) by US for the estimation of dry weight before and after HD and to analyze all methods in terms of fluid status variations induced by HD. An additional aim of this study was to establish the interoperator reproducibility of these methods. Methods: Two nephrologists evaluated BIS, ULCs, IVCD during inspiration (min) and expiration (max), the inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVCCI) as well as BNP before and after HD in 30 patients. The same operators measured BIS, ULCs and IVCD in 28 HD patients in a blinded fashion. Results: There was a significant reduction in BIS, ULCs, IVCD and BNP after HD (p < 0.001), but a less significant reduction in IVCCI (p = 0.13). There was a significant correlation between BIS and ULCs, BNP and indexed IVCD (IVCDi)min (p < 0.05) before and after HD, and between BIS and IVCDimax only before HD. Conclusion: All methods were able to describe hyperhydration before and after HD, except for IVCCI after HD. All techniques correlated with BIS before HD. After HD, ULCs correlated better with BIS than IVCD in terms of evaluation of fluid status. It could be expected that the ULCs can give a real-time evaluation of interstitial water. The reproducibility of the measurement of BIS, IVCD and ULCs between the two operators was high.

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an ideal model for testing remote monitoring (RM). In this study, we evaluated the RM application longitudinally in stable patients undergoing automated PD (APD). Methods: This was an observational study, comparing outcomes in patients with (current patients) and without (historical data) exposure of RM. We analyzed cost-effectiveness of RM-APD measuring the number of night alarms, number of hospital visits, direct and indirect costs. Results: Changes in APD prescription were almost double in the case group (RM) compared to the control group (p = 0.0005). The need for in-person visits and nocturnal alarms was significantly less in RM-APD than in traditional APD (p = 0.01 and p = 0.002, respectively). The distance traveled by patients in the case of RM-APD was reduced by 1,134 km with a time saving of 1,554 min for patients. The overall cost reduction for the PD center in terms of time/nurse and time/physician was 2,647 and 3,673 min, respectively. All these advantages were obtained in the presence of an improved technique survival with a significant reduction of dropouts. All patients found that it is easy to use the RM system and were satisfied with the high level of interaction with the care team and with the possibility of timely resolving technical problems. Conclusion: These data confirm the long-term benefits of RM applied to APD. RM-APD is cost-effective; it allows early detection and resolution of problems, improved treatment compliance, reduction of patient’s access to hospital center for technical and clinical complications with consequent savings, and improved patient’s quality of life.