Patrick G Lan1,2,3, Philip A Clayton4,2,3, David W Johnson5,6, Stephen P McDonald4,7,8, Monique Borlace7, Sunil V Badve5, Kamal Sud9,10, Neil Boudville11. 1. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, Adelaide, Australia plan1744@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Department of Nephrology, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 8. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide. 9. Departments of Renal Medicine, Nepean and Westmead Hospitals, Sydney, Australia. 10. Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 11. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
♦ BACKGROUND: Although technique failure is a key outcome in peritoneal dialysis (PD), there is currently no agreement on a uniform definition. We explored different definitions of PD technique failure using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. ♦ METHODS: We included 16,612 incident PD patients in Australia and New Zealand from January 1998 to December 2012. Different definitions of technique failure were applied according to the minimum number of days (30, 60, 90, 180, or 365) the patient received hemodialysis after cessation of PD. ♦ RESULTS: Median technique survival varied from 2.0 years with the 30-day definition to 2.4 years with the 365-day definition. For all definitions, the most common causes of technique failure were death, followed by infectious complications. The likelihood of a patient returning to PD within 12 months of technique failure was highest in the 30-day definition (24%), and was very small when using the 180- and 365-day definitions (3% and 0.8%, respectively). Patients whose technique failed due to mechanical reasons were the most likely to return to PD (46% within 12 months using the 30-day definition). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Both 30- and 180-day definitions have clinical relevance but offer different perspectives with very different prognostic implications for further PD. Therefore, we propose that PD technique failure be defined by a composite endpoint of death or transfer to hemodialysis using both 30-day and 180-day definitions.
♦ BACKGROUND: Although technique failure is a key outcome in peritoneal dialysis (PD), there is currently no agreement on a uniform definition. We explored different definitions of PD technique failure using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. ♦ METHODS: We included 16,612 incident PDpatients in Australia and New Zealand from January 1998 to December 2012. Different definitions of technique failure were applied according to the minimum number of days (30, 60, 90, 180, or 365) the patient received hemodialysis after cessation of PD. ♦ RESULTS: Median technique survival varied from 2.0 years with the 30-day definition to 2.4 years with the 365-day definition. For all definitions, the most common causes of technique failure were death, followed by infectious complications. The likelihood of a patient returning to PD within 12 months of technique failure was highest in the 30-day definition (24%), and was very small when using the 180- and 365-day definitions (3% and 0.8%, respectively). Patients whose technique failed due to mechanical reasons were the most likely to return to PD (46% within 12 months using the 30-day definition). ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Both 30- and 180-day definitions have clinical relevance but offer different perspectives with very different prognostic implications for further PD. Therefore, we propose that PD technique failure be defined by a composite endpoint of death or transfer to hemodialysis using both 30-day and 180-day definitions.
Authors: Neil Boudville; Anna Kemp; Philip Clayton; Wai Lim; Sunil V Badve; Carmel M Hawley; Stephen P McDonald; Kathryn J Wiggins; Kym M Bannister; Fiona G Brown; David W Johnson Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Patrick G Lan; Philip A Clayton; John Saunders; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Paul L Snelling Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: K J Jager; M P Merkus; F W Dekker; E W Boeschoten; J G Tijssen; P Stevens; W J Bos; R T Krediet Journal: Kidney Int Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jenny I Shen; Aya A Mitani; Anjali B Saxena; Benjamin A Goldstein; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Yeoungjee Cho; Sunil V Badve; Carmel M Hawley; Stephen P McDonald; Fiona G Brown; Neil Boudville; Philip Clayton; David W Johnson Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Htay Htay; Yeoungjee Cho; Elaine M Pascoe; Darsy Darssan; Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Carmel Hawley; Philip A Clayton; Monique Borlace; Sunil V Badve; Kamal Sud; Neil Boudville; Stephen P McDonald; David W Johnson Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Karine E Manera; Allison Tong; Jonathan C Craig; Jenny Shen; Shilpa Jesudason; Yeoungjee Cho; Benedicte Sautenet; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Martin Howell; Angela Yee-Moon Wang; Edwina A Brown; Gillian Brunier; Jeffrey Perl; Jie Dong; Martin Wilkie; Rajnish Mehrotra; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Saraladevi Naicker; Tony Dunning; Nicole Scholes-Robertson; David W Johnson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Eric W Young; Alissa Kapke; Zhechen Ding; Regina Baker; Jeffrey Pearson; Chad Cogan; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Marc N Turenne Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 8.237