Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology 2019; 3(01): 03-08
DOI: 10.4103/AJIR.AJIR_38_18
Original Article

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement: Comparative Study between Percutaneous Image-Guided versus Laparoscopic Techniques

Khalid Mahmoud
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Sherif Moawad
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Crystal Farrington
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Moustafa Massoud
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Andrew Gunn
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Yufeng Li
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Chen Dai
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Basant Farouk Hamed
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Ammar Almehmi
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
,
Ahmed Kamel Abdel-Aal
Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes and complications of percutaneous image-guided versus laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement techniques in the urgent-start setting. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 273 patients who had their first PD catheter between November 2012 and May 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into radiologic group (n = 26) and laparoscopic group (n = 16). Descriptive and Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis were used to compare time to first complication, time to catheter removal, and patient survival between the two groups. Complication-free and catheter removal rates at 1, 3, and 12 months were estimated from KM analysis. Results: A total of 42 patients were included in the study. The baseline demographics were similar between the two groups. In the radiologic group, the estimated 1, 3, and 12 months' complication-free rate were 100%, 94%, and 67%, respectively, which was not significantly different from 93%, 85%, and 45%, respectively, in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.543). The rate of catheter complications was not significantly different between the radiologic group (50%) and the laparoscopic group (31%) (P = 0.3382). The catheter removal rate in the radiologic group was 8, 18%, and 38% at 1, 3, and 12 months, respectively, versus 0%, 8%, and 20%, respectively, in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.298). The overall patient survival between two groups was not significantly different (P = 0.116) with estimated patient mortality of 15.4% at 12 months in the radiologic group and no deaths in the laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Image-guided percutaneously placed PD catheters have a similar complication and removal rates compared to laparoscopically placed catheters in the urgent-start setting.

Chronic kidney disease - end-stage renal disease - fluoroscopic - laparoscopic - peritoneal dialysis - urgent-start


Publication History

Article published online:
23 March 2021

© 2019. The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 United States Renal Data System. USRDS 2014 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States: CKD in the General Population. Vol. 1. Ch. 1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2014.
  • 2 United States Renal Data System. USRDS 2015 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States: Vascular Access. Vol. 2. Ch. 4. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2015.
  • 3 Astor BC, Eustace JA, Powe NR, Klag MJ, Fink NE, Coresh J, et al. Type of vascular access and survival among incident hemodialysis patients: The choices for healthy outcomes in caring for ESRD (CHOICE) study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:1449-55.
  • 4 Ishani A, Collins AJ, Herzog CA, Foley RN. Septicemia, access and cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients: The USRDS wave 2 study. Kidney Int 2005;68:311-8.
  • 5 Johnson DW, Dent H, Hawley CM, McDonald SP, Rosman JB, Brown FG, et al. Associations of dialysis modality and infectious mortality in incident dialysis patients in Australia and New Zealand. Am J Kidney Dis 2009;53:290-7.
  • 6 Lorenzo V, Martn M, Rufino M, Hernández D, Torres A, Ayus JC, et al. Predialysis nephrologic care and a functioning arteriovenous fistula at entry are associated with better survival in incident hemodialysis patients: An observational cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;43:999-1007.
  • 7 Patel PR, Kallen AJ, Arduino MJ. Epidemiology, surveillance, and prevention of bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2010;56:566-77.
  • 8 Klarenbach SW, Tonelli M, Chui B, Manns BJ. Economic evaluation of dialysis therapies. Nat Rev Nephrol 2014;10:644-52.
  • 9 Blagg CR. Dialysis composite rate bundling: Potential effects on the utilization of home hemodialysis, daily and nocturnal hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. Semin Dial 2011;24:674-7.
  • 10 Yeates K, Zhu N, Vonesh E, Trpeski L, Blake P, Fenton S, et al. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are associated with similar outcomes for end-stage renal disease treatment in Canada. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:3568-75.
  • 11 Moist LM, Lok CE. Incident dialysis access in patients with end-stage kidney disease: What needs to be improved. Semin Nephrol 2017;37:151-8.
  • 12 Bargman JM. Complications of peritoneal dialysis related to increased intraabdominal pressure. Kidney Int Suppl 1993;40:S75-80.
  • 13 Maher E, Wolley MJ, Abbas SA, Hawkins SP, Marshall MR. Fluoroscopic versus laparoscopic implantation of peritoneal dialysis catheters: A retrospective cohort study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014;25:895-903.
  • 14 Ghaffari A, Kumar V, Guest S. Infrastructure requirements for an urgent-start peritoneal dialysis program. Perit Dial Int 2013;33:611-7.
  • 15 Abdel-Aal AK, Joshi AK, Saddekni S, Maya ID. Fluoroscopic and sonographic guidance to place peritoneal catheters: How we do it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1085-9.
  • 16 Abdel-Aal AK, Dybbro P, Hathaway P, Guest S, Neuwirth M, Krishnamurthy V, et al. Best practices consensus protocol for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement by interventional radiologists. Perit Dial Int 2014;34:481-93.
  • 17 Savader SJ. Percutaneous radiologic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1999;10:249-56.
  • 18 Ghaffari A. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: A quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 2012;59:400-8.
  • 19 Liu FX, Ghaffari A, Dhatt H, Kumar V, Balsera C, Wallace E, et al. Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014;93:e293.
  • 20 Masseur A, Guest S, Kumar V. Early technique success after initiation of treatment with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. Adv Perit Dial 2014;30:36-9.
  • 21 Casaretto A, Rosario R, Kotzker WR, Pagan-Rosario Y, Groenhoff C, Guest S, et al. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: Report from a U.S. Private nephrology practice. Adv Perit Dial 2012;28:102-5.
  • 22 Xue H, Ix JH, Wang W, Brunelli SM, Lazarus M, Hakim R, et al. Hemodialysis access usage patterns in the incident dialysis year and associated catheter-related complications. Am J Kidney Dis 2013;61:123-30.
  • 23 Song JH, Kim GA, Lee SW, Kim MJ. Clinical outcomes of immediate full-volume exchange one year after peritoneal catheter implantation for CAPD. Perit Dial Int 2000;20:194-9.
  • 24 Banli O, Altun H, Oztemel A. Early start of CAPD with the Seldinger technique. Perit Dial Int 2005;25:556-9.
  • 25 Jo YI, Shin SK, Lee JH, Song JO, Park JH. Immediate initiation of CAPD following percutaneous catheter placement without break-in procedure. Perit Dial Int 2007;27:179-83.
  • 26 Alkatheeri AM, Blake PG, Gray D, Jain AK. Success of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in a large Canadian renal program. Perit Dial Int 2016;36:171-6.
  • 27 Povlsen JV, Ivarsen P. How to start the late referred ESRD patient urgently on chronic APD. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21 Suppl 2:ii56-9.
  • 28 Yang YF, Wang HJ, Yeh CC, Lin HH, Huang CC. Early initiation of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in patients undergoing surgical implantation of tenckhoff catheters. Perit Dial Int 2011;31:551-7.
  • 29 Dias DB, Banin V, Mendes ML, Barretti P, Ponce D. Peritoneal dialysis can be an option for unplanned chronic dialysis: Initial results from a developing country. Int Urol Nephrol 2016;48:901-6.