Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be placed by interventional radiologists, an approach that might offer scheduling efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, and a minimally invasive procedure. In the United States, changes in the dialysis reimbursement structure by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are expected to result in the increased use of PD, a less costly dialysis modality that offers patients the opportunity to receive dialysis in the home setting and to have more independence for travel and work schedules, and that preserves vascular access for future dialysis options.

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease nearing dialysis but without pre-established access almost uniformly initiate dialysis with a temporary central venous catheter. These catheters are associated with high rates of infection and flow disturbances, requiring removal and subsequent replacement. Many of these patients might be candidates for peritoneal dialysis (PD), but because of the absence of prior catheter placement, the default initial modality is hemodialysis. Recent reports, however, have demonstrated the feasibility of initiating PD urgently despite the late referral for access placement. Urgent-start PD clinical pathways require a unique infrastructure and treatment approach. This article reviews the salient features required to establish an urgent-start PD program.Perit Dial Int 2013; 33(6):611-617 www.PDIConnect.com

No abstract

♦ Background: The adjusted 5-year survival for dialysis patients in the United States is 33%-35%, and patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) have a high risk of transfer to hemodialysis (HD). No data are available on the effect of neighborhood characteristics or regional differences on the outcomes of PD patients in the United States. ♦ Methods: We analyzed the relationships of selected patient demographics, socio-economic characteristics of the dialysis unit's neighborhood, "rurality," and geographic location with transfer to HD and with a composite outcome of transfer to HD or death, for all PD patients in the United States who, between 2004 and 2009, used supplies manufactured by Baxter Healthcare (n = 58 700). ♦ Results: Over a median follow-up of 18.7 months, 29% of patients transferred to HD (median time to HD transfer: 49 months), and 54% reached the composite outcome. More than 20% of the events occurred within the first 90 days of PD start. The risk for each of the study outcomes was higher for patients who had received any previous treatment with HD, for those treated in units located in areas with a higher proportion of black residents, and for those living in remote rural areas. Furthermore, the risk for reaching either of the study outcomes was consistently lower for patients treated in units located in California, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. ♦ Conclusions: We observed significant regional differences in the outcomes of PD patients in the United States that have not previously been reported. Understanding the differences in clinical practice that underlie these regional differences might help to further improve PD outcomes.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

A known complication of peritoneal dialysis is the movement of dialysate into the pleural space, termed hydrothorax. Peritoneal dialysis-related hydrothorax is almost uniformly right-sided and represents one of many presentations of the porous diaphragm syndrome. In addition to diaphragm porosity, the inherent intestinal circulation, lower hydrostatic pressure in the right upper quadrant and liver capsule may contribute to this right-sided predominance. Similar right-sided presentations have been described in Meigs syndrome, bilious effusions with gastric or duodenal perforations, hepatic hydrothorax and nephrotic syndrome-related chylothorax. PD-related hydrothorax can be repaired by pleurodesis or video-assisted thoracoscopy followed by resumption of peritoneal dialysis.

On 1 January 2011, a new payment system for Medicare patients will be implemented in the United States. This new system bundles services previously charged separately and under a "fee for service" environment. The authors discuss the implications of this approach. Over the next several pages is a response by American physicians and dialysis innovators to a federal initiative to change the way dialysis is paid for in the United States. Peter Blake, the Editor-in-Chief of Peritoneal Dialysis International, invited Thomas Golper to articulate physicians' concerns with this new payment scheme. After the government of the USA closed its comment period over the new payment methodology, called "bundling," Golper sought out colleagues from diverse backgrounds and compiled this collective view of the situation.