Search

Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are validated in treating heart failure and ameliorating left ventricular hypertrophy among non-dialysis patients, the effects on dialysis patients are unknown. We previously investigated the pharmacokinetics of henagliflozin in patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) and clarified its safety., Methods and Analysis: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is being conducted at three hospitals in Shanghai, China. A target of 108 HD or PD patients with HFpEF are randomly allocated to treatment group (henagliflozin 5 mg/day in addition to standard therapy) or control group (placebo with standard therapy) at a ratio of 1:1. All subjects will be followed up for 24 weeks. The primary outcome is change in echocardiography-measured left ventricular mass index. The secondary interests include changes in left atrial volume index, E/e', e' and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Intergroup comparisons of change in echocardiography-related outcomes from baseline to 24 weeks are based on a linear regression model adjusted for baseline values (analysis of covariance), and repeated measure analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustment is employed for comparison of change in NT-proBNP. Subgroup analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes are conducted to determine whether the effect of henagliflozin varies according to dialysis modality. The χ 2 method is used to compare the occurrence of adverse events and severe adverse events., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (LY2023-127-B). All participants provide written informed consent before screening. The results of the trial will be disclosed completely in international peer-reviewed journals. Both positive and negative results will be reported., Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2300073169., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Recent evidence suggests that automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis., Methods: This prospective study enrolled end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients who had started APD as an urgent-start dialysis modality at a single center. Dialysis-related complications were recorded. Dialysis adequacy and electrolytes imbalance were compared between baseline, 14 and 42 days after catheter insertion. Technique survival and patient survival were also recorded., Results: A total of 36 patients were included in the study. Mean follow-up duration was 22 months. During the follow-up, 11 PD patients (30.6%) developed dialysis-related complications. Only two patients (5.6%) required re-insertion and one patients (2.8%) transfer to HD. The 2-year technique survival rate and patient survival rate were 94.4% and 97.2%, respectively., Conclusion: In considering safety and dialysis adequacy, APD could be a feasible dialysis modality for urgent-start dialysis in ESRD patients, using a standard procedure., (© 2022 International Society for Apheresis and Japanese Society for Apheresis.)

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.

Assisted PD is used as an alternative option for the growing group of frail, older ESKD patients unable to perform their own PD. This study was undertaken to investigate the outcomes of assisted PD in older patients by comparing assisted PD patients with self-care PD patients. This study included all patients aged 70 and above who started on PD in our hospital from 2009 to 2018. Patients were followed up until death, PD cessation or to the end of the study (December 31, 2019). Risk factors associated with mortality, peritonitis and technique failure were evaluated using both cause-specific hazards and subdistribution hazards models. 180 patients were enrolled, including 106 (58.9%) males with a median age of 77.5 (77.2-81.2) years. Among the 180 patients, 62 patients (34.4%) were assisted. Patients on assisted PD group were older, more likely to be female, more prevalent in DM and CVD, with a higher Charlson score than patients undergoing self-care PD (P all < 0.05). In the multivariable analysis, assisted patients had a comparable patient survival and peritonitis-free survival compared to self-care PD patients either in the Cox or in the FG models. According to a Cox model, the use of assisted PD was associated with a lower risk of technique failure (cs-HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.76), but the association lost its statistical significance in the Fine and Gray model. Our results suggest that assisted PD could be a safe and effective KRT modality for older ESKD patients who need assistance., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) frequently require urgent-start dialysis. Recent evidence suggests that peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in these patients, including in older patients., Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients aged > 65 years with ESRD who underwent urgent dialysis without functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center, from January 2011 to December 2014. Patients were grouped based on their dialysis modality (PD or HD). Patients unable to tolerate PD catheter insertion or wait for PD were excluded. Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion. Short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the 2 groups., Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled, including 53 (56.4%) who underwent PD. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly lower in PD compared with HD patients (3 [5.7%] vs 10 [24.4%], p = 0.009). Logistic regression identified urgent-start HD as an independent risk factor for dialysis-related complications compared with urgent-start PD (odds ratio 4.760 [1.183 - 19.147], p = 0.028). The 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival rates in the PD and HD groups were 92.3% vs 94.6%, 82.4% vs 81.3%, 75.7% vs 74.2%, and 69.5% vs 60.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (log-rank = 0.011, p = 0.915)., Conclusion: Urgent-start PD was associated with fewer short-term dialysis-related complications and similar survival to urgent-start HD in older patients with ESRD. Peritoneal dialysis may thus be a safe and effective dialysis modality for older ESRD patients requiring urgent dialysis., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis.)