Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis is better than automated peritoneal dialysis as first-line treatment in renal replacement therapy.

This article examines the roles of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) versus automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) as first-line renal replacement therapy. To date, no high-quality large-scale randomized controlled studies have compared CAPD with APD as first-line therapy. However, a discussion on this issue is important so that nephrologists can decide and patients can have a choice of modality on which to start dialysis, especially in the context of health care economics. We review the literature and present Hong Kong as the model of a "CAPD first" policy, an appealing, cost-effective approach for any country. An ideal renal replacement therapy should provide optimal survival, lowest possible risk for comorbidity, highest level of quality of life, and equally important, acceptable cost to society. When we consider this subject in the context that all patients should be started on one first-line modality, the data suggest that a "CAPD first" policy has all these advantages, with APD probably having the edge only with regard to patient preference. The present review highlights preservation of residual renal function, removal and balancing of sodium, incidence of peritonitis, peritoneal membrane transport status, patient rehabilitation, and financial issues in demonstrating that a "CAPD first" policy is the model that should be adopted.