Johan V Povlsen1, Per Ivarsen. 1. Department of Renal Medicine C, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. vpj@sks.aaa.dk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe basic demographics and clinical outcomes among elderly end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients physically dependent on a caregiver and maintained on an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (AAPD) program. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study based on patient records and data files. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: 64 physically dependent AAPD patients followed for 1.012 treatment months. Assistance and care was delivered by 52 briefly trained teams of visiting nurses or nursing home staff. RESULT: Crude 1-year survival was 58% and 2-year survival was 48%. Crude 1- and 2-year survivals, excluding deaths within 90 days, were 66% and 54% respectively. We found no significant effect on survival by main causes of ESRD, gender, age, late referral, need for acute start, social isolation, physical dependency on help at inclusion, or residence in a nursing home. 10% of patient-days on AAPD were spent in hospital. 13 (20%) of the patients were converted permanently to hemodialysis due to PD technique failure. The incidence of peritonitis was 1 in every 25.3 treatment-months. CONCLUSIONS: AAPD may be a feasible and safe option for renal replacement therapy for frail, elderly, and physically dependent patients with ESRD. Despite the special patient selection for this AAPD program, we achieved results of international standards for patient survival, PD technique survival, and incidence of acute peritonitis. These results do notjustify withholding dialysis from this group of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To describe basic demographics and clinical outcomes among elderly end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients physically dependent on a caregiver and maintained on an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (AAPD) program. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study based on patient records and data files. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: 64 physically dependent AAPD patients followed for 1.012 treatment months. Assistance and care was delivered by 52 briefly trained teams of visiting nurses or nursing home staff. RESULT: Crude 1-year survival was 58% and 2-year survival was 48%. Crude 1- and 2-year survivals, excluding deaths within 90 days, were 66% and 54% respectively. We found no significant effect on survival by main causes of ESRD, gender, age, late referral, need for acute start, social isolation, physical dependency on help at inclusion, or residence in a nursing home. 10% of patient-days on AAPD were spent in hospital. 13 (20%) of the patients were converted permanently to hemodialysis due to PD technique failure. The incidence of peritonitis was 1 in every 25.3 treatment-months. CONCLUSIONS: AAPD may be a feasible and safe option for renal replacement therapy for frail, elderly, and physically dependent patients with ESRD. Despite the special patient selection for this AAPD program, we achieved results of international standards for patient survival, PD technique survival, and incidence of acute peritonitis. These results do notjustify withholding dialysis from this group of patients.
Authors: Osasuyi U Iyasere; Edwina A Brown; Lina Johansson; Les Huson; Joanna Smee; Alexander P Maxwell; Ken Farrington; Andrew Davenport Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Marcia Regina Gianotti Franco; Natália Fernandes; Claúdia Azevedo Ribeiro; Abdul Rashid Qureshi; Jose Carolino Divino-Filho; Maria da Glória Lima Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.756