Explore the vast range of titles available.

is a rare pathogen causing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, and it is usually recognized among immunosuppressed or traumatized patients. A 24-year-old lady was treated for peritonitis as an outpatient with empirical therapy. PD culture grew after 48 hours, and she continued receiving intraperitoneal (IP) vancomycin for a total of three weeks. The patient was clinically stable throughout the course of therapy and showed complete resolution of her symptoms. This was the first case of reported peritonitis in an automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) patient with rapid clinical and biochemical improvement without evidence of relapse or recurrence.

Currently, due to the absence of economic evaluation information, automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is not included in Thailand’s Universal Health Coverage (UHC) benefit package. Therefore, we aimed to assess the cost-utility and budget impact of APD and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in pediatric end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. A Markov model was applied to compare lifetime costs and health outcomes based on a social perspective using cost, utility, and transitional probability data from literature reviews. The results were presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Moreover, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of all parameters. From a social perspective, patients receiving APD had higher total lifetime cost (14,791,473 baht) than those receiving CAPD (13,380,356 baht), but fewer life years (APD = 18.39, CAPD = 18.44) and higher quality adjusted life years (QALY) (APD = 16.31 and CAPD 15.65). At the societal willingness to pay in Thailand equal to 160,000 baht per QALY gained, APD would not be cost-effective (ICER = 3,063,598 baht per QALY gained). The inclusion of APD can result in an increase in annual budget of 54 million baht. Therefore, this study would help inform policy decisions regarding the inclusion of APD for pediatric with ESKD in the UHC benefit package.

   Background The standard rate of sodium removal in adult anuric patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is 7.5 g/L of ultrafiltration volume (UFV). Although automated PD (APD) is widely used in pediatric patients, no attempt has yet been made to estimate sodium removal in APD. Methods The present, retrospective cohort study included pediatric patients with APD who were managed at Tokyo Metropolitan Children’s Medical Center between July 2010 and November 2017. The patients underwent a peritoneal equilibrium test (PET) at our hospital. Sodium removal per UFV was calculated by peritoneal function and dwell time using samples from patients on APD with 1- and 2-h dwell effluent within three months of PET and 4- and 10-h dwell effluent at PET. Results In total, 217 samples from 18 patients were included, with 63, 81, and 73 of the samples corresponding to the High [H], High-average [HA], and Low-average [LA] PET category, respectively. Sodium removal per UFV (g/L in salt equivalent) for dwell times of one, two, four, and ten hours was 5.2, 8.8, 8.0, and 11.5 for PET [H], 5.3, 5.8, 5.6, and 8.1 for PET [HA], and 4.6, 5.1, 5.1, and 7.1 for PET [LA], respectively. Conclusions Sodium removal per UFV in pediatric APD was less than the standard adult CAPD and tended to be lower with shorter dwell times, leading to sodium accumulation. Therefore, salt intake should be restricted in combination with one or more long daytime dwells, especially in anuric patients. Graphical Abstract A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information

Introduction: Fluid overload is an unavoidable problem in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with poor outcomes. The aim of our study was to estimate ultrafiltration (UF) under different dextrose concentrations (DCs) and four peritoneal transport levels. Materials and methods: 70 patients, with a total of 1,848 daily treatment records and 8,266 single dwells on automated PD (APD) through Homechoice Claria with Sharesource were followed in October 2020 and categorized into two groups according to the DC (D1.5% and D2.5% groups). Baseline characteristics, peritoneal membrane characteristics, and daily PD treatment records from Sharesource were obtained. We compared UF under the different conditions. Results: The mean night UF per cycle, the mean night UF corrected by fill volume (FV) per cycle, and the mean night UF corrected by FV and dwelling time (DT) per cycle were all significantly higher in the D2.5% group than in the D1.5% group (95.8 vs. 220.3 mL, 5.5 vs. 12.0%, and 5.0 vs. 11.6 0/000/minutes, all p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference among the four transport categories in any group. Conclusion: This retrospective study presents precise UF measurements with two solutions at different DCs and four peritoneal transport levels. With a 2-L indwell (DT ranging from ~ 1 to 3 hours), the mean net UF rate was 1.0 mL/min in the D1.5% group and 2.3 mL/min in the D2.5% group.

The use of Automated Peritoneal Dialysis (APD) in its various forms has increased over the past few years mainly in developed countries. This could be attributed to improved cycler design, apparent lifestyle benefits and the ability to achieve adequacy and ultrafiltration targets. However, the dilemma of choosing the superior modality between APD and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) has not yet been resolved. When it comes to fast transporters and assisted PD, APD is certainly considered the most suitable Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) modality. Improved patients’ compliance, lower intraperitoneal pressure and possibly lower incidence of peritonitis have been also associated with APD. However, concerns regarding increased cost, a more rapid decline in residual renal function, inadequate sodium removal and disturbed sleep are APD’s setbacks. Besides APD superiority over CAPD in fast transporters, the other medical advantages of APD still remain controversial. In any case, APD should be readily available for all patients starting PD and the most important indication for its implementation remains patient’s choice.

To salvage the PD catheter, a noninvasive guidewire-directed manipulation procedure was performed, but poor dialysate fluid drainage recurred 1 month later. [...]we performed laparoscopic peritoneal wall anchor technique to prevent further migration of the PD catheter tip. The arrow indicates the location of the previous catheter diversion procedure, with exit site renewal for exit-site and tunnel infections Figure 1 shows the port placement and the site of catheter fixation to the anterior peritoneal wall. [...]our patient experienced repeat poor drainage of dialysate fluid during APD mode. Since catheter positioning seemed correct on preoperative abdominal radiography, we suspected the presence of intra-abdominal adhesions to the catheter tip and selected the laparoscopic peritoneal wall anchor technique. Conversely, catheter floating, the main cause of PD catheter tip migration, may occur if the free catheter in the peritoneal cavity is long. [...]catheter fixation to the abdominal wall is expected to reduce catheter migration by eliminating free catheter movement in the peritoneal cavity [4].

Objectives End-stage renal disease (ESRD) may result in different degrees of physical and psychological pain. Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), and hemodialysis (HD) as the main treatment methods lead to a heavy burden on social economic and family financial. However, there are few studies on the economic evaluation of the three dialysis methods in China. Methods Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using Markov models based on longitudinal data for 15 years of different modalities in Kunshan City, China. Direct cost derived from medical insurance information system, and indirect cost referred to as loss of productivity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to study uncertainty. Results The per capita total cost of CAPD was 664,027.00 yuan, the per capita utility is 5.9105. The per capita total cost of APD was 858,800.65 yuan, the per capita utility is 6.4548. The per capita total cost of HD was 1,281,213.64 yuan, the per capita utility is 6.1356. When CAPD was compared with HD, Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was 1,323,389.53 yuan per QALY, compared with APD, ICER was 357,848.13 yuan per QALY. ICER value suggests that APD was cost-effective compared with CAPD and HD at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 538,200 yuan. Conclusion Our research showed that APD is the most appropriate and HD is the worst in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, in fact, HD accounts for a high proportion in China, so some relevant policy suggestions need to be implemented to change the current situation.

During urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, both adequate dialysis and skill training for fluid exchange are essential. However, automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) alone or manual fluid exchange peritoneal dialysis (MPD) alone could meet the above demands. Therefore, our study combined APD with MPD (A-MPD), and compared A-MPD with MPD, aiming to find the most appropriate treatment mode. This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. All eligible patients were randomized into the MPD and A-MPD groups. All patients underwent a five-day USPD treatment 48 h after catheter implantation, and they were followed up for six months after discharge. Overall, 74 patients were enrolled in this study. Among these, 14 and 60 patients quit due to complications during USPD and completed the study (A-MPD = 31, MPD = 29), respectively. Compared with MPD, the A-MPD treatment mode had a better effect on removing serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and potassium and improving serum carbon dioxide combining power levels; it had less time expenditure on the fluid exchange by nurses (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the A-MPD group had higher scores on the skill tests than those in the MPD group (p = 0.002). However, no significant differences in short-term peritoneal dialysis (PD) complications, PD technical survival rate, or mortality were found between the two groups. Therefore, the A-MPD mode could be recommended as an adoptable and suitable PD modality for USPD in the future.

Recent reports indicate a decreased mortality risk for patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis in the United States. We sought to determine whether a higher use of automated versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was associated with this improvement. Analyses were carried out using data from the United States Renal Data System on 66,381 incident patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis in the years 1996–2004 that were adjusted for demographic, clinical, laboratory and dialysis facility characteristics. Patients were followed until the time of transfer to other modes of dialysis, transplant, or death, whichever occurred first, or until their last follow-up through September 2006. Over time, the risks were substantially reduced such that the adjusted hazard ratios for death or technique failure of these patients in the 2002–2004 period were 0.55 (0.53, 0.57) and 0.62 (0.59, 0.64), respectively, compared with those of incident patients during the years 1996–1998. The risk improvements for both modes of dialysis were, however, found to be similar. Under intent-to-treat, time-dependent, and as-treated analysis, there was little or no difference in risk for death or in technique failure. Thus, the improved chronic peritoneal dialysis outcomes cannot be attributed to a greater use of automated peritoneal dialysis.

Dwell time is a critical component of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) prescription, the stage at which transmembrane mass and fluid transfer occur. Loss of prescribed dwell time (LDT) can negatively influence the efficiency of APD. We investigated the incidence of LDT and related causes using APD in the acute care setting at a tertiary care center. Retrospective analysis was conducted of all inpatients receiving APD treatments from 1 December 2021 to 1 June 2023. Patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory, and treatment data were extracted from electronic medical records and a propriety database.  = 235 cycler treatments completed by 32 patients were included for analysis. The total LDT per treatment exceeding 30 minutes and 60 minutes occurred in 27% and 20% of all treatments. LDT of more than 10 minutes per each cycle exchange occurred in 26%. Session disruptions were caused by slow out-flow (55%), inadequate drain volumes (32%), patient line occlusions (20%), and priming errors (23%). The slow flow alarm requiring user intervention was reported to occur in about one-third of all treatments (31%). There was significant LDT and inadequate drain volume seen in about one-quarter and one-third of all inpatient APD treatments respectively. This can impact solute clearance and ultrafiltration.  Slow flow alarms were the most prevalent and the leading cause of LDT followed by inadequate drain volume. Future studies are required to investigate measures to reduce slow drain and improve drain volume in the hospital setting.   .