Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal disease

Rabindranath, Kannaiyan S; Adams, James M.; Ali, Tariq; MacLeod, Alison Murray; Vale, Luke; Cody, June D; Wallace, S; Daly, Conal

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006515

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of major differences in QoL between patients on APD and CAPD is in line with the conclusions of a Cochrane review (18). The lack of major differences in QoL between patients on APD and CAPD is in line with the conclusions of a Cochrane review (18).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Quality of Life in Automated and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Michels

Dijk²,

Verduijn³

et al. 2011

Perit Dial Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clinical and social characteristics of the 64 APD and 486 CAPD patients were slightly different at baseline. In the crude analysis, the pattern of the mental summary score differed between the modalities (p = 0.03, adjusted p = 0.06), because of a different pattern for role function emotional (p = 0.03, adjusted p = 0.05). The pattern of the physical summary score was not different between the groups. Scores on dialysis staff encouragement had a different pattern over time (p = 0.01), because of an inequality in scores 3 months after the start of dialysis, which disappeared after 18 months on dialysis. Over time, patients on APD scored higher on sexual function. After adjustment for age, sex, glomerular filtration rate, comorbidity, and primary kidney disease, that difference disappeared. This study showed no major differences in QoL on the KDQOL-SF and the SF-36 between the two modalities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Quality of Life in Automated and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Michels

Dijk²,

Verduijn³

et al. 2011

Perit Dial Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laboratory measures, except for eGFR, could not be incorporated in the analysis. Furthermore, different PD modalities were not evaluated because of frequent shifts between them and the fact that these modalities have previously been associated with similar outcomes (58,59). Similarly, specific HHD treatment schedules were not examined because of power issues and inconsistency in classification over the study period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Incident Cohort Study Comparing Survival on Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis (Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry)

Nadeau‐Fredette

Hawley

Pascoe

et al. 2015

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives Home dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and TransplantationRegistry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model. ResultsThe study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P,0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality.Conclusions Home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.

show abstract

“…Of the remaining meta-analyses (20% each), one focused on the comparison of different techniques for the treatment of pilonidal sinus, 89 in which primary closure was associated with lower recurrence rates; one on the comparison of continuous ambulatory dialysis with automated peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal diseases, 90 in which no difference was found between the types of dialysis in terms of mortality or peritonitis; one on the use of plastic adhesive drapes versus no drape during surgery, 91 in which no advantage was found in the use of drapes regarding the surgical site infection rates; one on the comparison of different techniques of tracheostomy, 92 in which percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy was superior to surgical tracheostomy in terms of wound infections rates; and one on the comparison of different hair removal techniques to reduce SSIs, 93 in which no advantage was found in preoperative hair removal of any type.…”

Section: Meta-analyses Focusing On Other Topicsmentioning

confidence: 99%