A Pilot Study on Cost Evaluation of Urgent Start Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in the Treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease in São Paulo, Brazil

Brabo, AM; Menezes, FG; Morgado, F; Ponce, Daniela

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1800

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration of initial hospitalization was similar between the APD and HD groups, which was consistent with a previous report. 23 Our findings pointed out that APD as a urgent-start dialysis modality could offer cost saving of up to 40% compared to HD through a CVC, encouraging the government to promote the use of urgent-start APD, especially in developing countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Brabo et al 23 compared the cost per patient over 6 months and reported similar costs (US$6091.7 ± 1289.4 vs 6209.1 ± 1600) between urgent-start PD and HD using a CVC. However, we found that the cost of initial hospitalization in the APD group was significantly lower than that in the HD group, suggesting that urgent-start PD can offer cost savings compared to HD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automated peritoneal dialysis as a cost-effective urgent-start dialysis option for ESRD patients: A prospective cohort study

Jin

et al. 2022

Int J Artif Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Several studies have reported the feasibility of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) as an alternative to hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, the cost-effectiveness of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) as an urgent-start dialysis modality has not been directly evaluated, especially in China. Methods We prospectively enrolled patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who required urgent-start dialysis at a single center from March 2019 to November 2020. Patients were grouped according to their urgent-start dialysis modality (APD and HD). Urgent-start dialysis conducted until 14 days after PD catheter insertion. Then, PD was maintained. Each patient was followed until July 2021 or death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was the incidence of short-term dialysis-related complications. The secondary outcome was the cost and duration of the initial hospitalization. Technique survival, peritonitis-free or bacteriamia-free survival and patient survival were also compared. Results Sixty-eight patients were included in the study, of whom 36 (52.9%) patients were in APD group. Mean follow-up duration was 20.1 months. Compared with the HD group, the APD group had significantly fewer short-term dialysis-related complications. The cost of initial hospitalization was also significantly lower in APD patients. There was no significant difference between APD and HD patients with respect to duration of the initial hospitalization, technique survival rate, peritonitis-free or bacteriemia-free survival rate, and patient survival rate. Conclusion Among ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis, APD as urgent-start dialysis modality, compared with HD using a CVC, resulted in fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and lower cost.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%