Mark Hofmeister1,2, Scott Klarenbach3, Lesley Soril1,2, Nairne Scott-Douglas4, Fiona Clement5,2. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Health Technology Assessment Unit, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; fclement@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compared with hemodialysis, home peritoneal dialysis alleviates the burden of travel, facilitates independence, and is less costly. Physical, cognitive, or psychosocial factors may preclude peritoneal dialysis in otherwise eligible patients. Assisted peritoneal dialysis, where trained personnel assist with home peritoneal dialysis, may be an option, but the optimal model is unknown. The objective of this work is to characterize existing assisted peritoneal dialysis models and synthesize clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted (search dates: January 1995-September 2018). A focused gray literature search was also completed, limited to developed nations. Included studies focused on home-based assisted peritoneal dialysis; studies with the assist provided exclusively by unpaid family caregivers were excluded. All outcomes were narratively synthesized; quantitative outcomes were graphically depicted. RESULTS: We included 34 studies, totaling 46,597 patients, with assisted peritoneal dialysis programs identified in 20 jurisdictions. Two categories emerged for models of assisted peritoneal dialysis on the basis of type of assistance: health care and non-health care professional assistance. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous, ranging from patient-level outcomes of survival, to resource use and transfer to hemodialysis; however, the comparative effect of assisted peritoneal dialysis was unclear. In two qualitative studies examining the patient experience, the maintenance of independence was identified as an important theme. CONCLUSIONS: Reported outcomes and quality were heterogeneous, and relative efficacy of assisted peritoneal dialysis could not be determined from included studies. Although the patient voice was under-represented, suggestions to improve assisted peritoneal dialysis included using a person-centered model of care, ensuring continuity of nurses providing the peritoneal dialysis assist, and measures to support patient independence. Although attractive elements of assisted peritoneal dialysis are identified, further evidence is needed to connect assisted peritoneal dialysis outcomes with programmatic features and their associated funding models.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compared with hemodialysis, home peritoneal dialysis alleviates the burden of travel, facilitates independence, and is less costly. Physical, cognitive, or psychosocial factors may preclude peritoneal dialysis in otherwise eligible patients. Assisted peritoneal dialysis, where trained personnel assist with home peritoneal dialysis, may be an option, but the optimal model is unknown. The objective of this work is to characterize existing assisted peritoneal dialysis models and synthesize clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted (search dates: January 1995-September 2018). A focused gray literature search was also completed, limited to developed nations. Included studies focused on home-based assisted peritoneal dialysis; studies with the assist provided exclusively by unpaid family caregivers were excluded. All outcomes were narratively synthesized; quantitative outcomes were graphically depicted. RESULTS: We included 34 studies, totaling 46,597 patients, with assisted peritoneal dialysis programs identified in 20 jurisdictions. Two categories emerged for models of assisted peritoneal dialysis on the basis of type of assistance: health care and non-health care professional assistance. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous, ranging from patient-level outcomes of survival, to resource use and transfer to hemodialysis; however, the comparative effect of assisted peritoneal dialysis was unclear. In two qualitative studies examining the patient experience, the maintenance of independence was identified as an important theme. CONCLUSIONS: Reported outcomes and quality were heterogeneous, and relative efficacy of assisted peritoneal dialysis could not be determined from included studies. Although the patient voice was under-represented, suggestions to improve assisted peritoneal dialysis included using a person-centered model of care, ensuring continuity of nurses providing the peritoneal dialysis assist, and measures to support patient independence. Although attractive elements of assisted peritoneal dialysis are identified, further evidence is needed to connect assisted peritoneal dialysis outcomes with programmatic features and their associated funding models.
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: Jamal Saleh Al Wakeel; Mohammed A Al Ghonaim; Abdullah Aldohayan; Saira Usama; Saad Al Obaili; Ahmad R Tarakji; Mohammad Alkhowaiter Journal: Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl Date: 2018 Jan-Feb
Authors: Aminu K Bello; Ikechi G Okpechi; Mohamed A Osman; Yeoungjee Cho; Brett Cullis; Htay Htay; Vivekanand Jha; Muhammad A Makusidi; Mignon McCulloch; Nikhil Shah; Marina Wainstein; David W Johnson Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 42.439