Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Jul 27;10(7):e0134047.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134047. eCollection 2015.

Automated Peritoneal Dialysis Is Associated with Better Survival Rates Compared to Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Automated Peritoneal Dialysis Is Associated with Better Survival Rates Compared to Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Gabriela de Carvalho Beduschi et al. PLoS One. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of peritoneal dialysis modality on patient survival and peritonitis rates is not fully understood, and no large-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) is available. In the absence of a RCT, the use of an advanced matching procedure to reduce selection bias in large cohort studies may be the best approach. The aim of this study is to compare automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) according to peritonitis risk, technique failure and patient survival in a large nation-wide PD cohort.

Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that included all incident PD patients with at least 90 days of PD recruited in the BRAZPD study. All patients who were treated exclusively with either APD or CAPD were matched for 15 different covariates using a propensity score calculated with the nearest neighbor method. Clinical outcomes analyzed were overall mortality, technique failure and time to first peritonitis. For all analysis we also adjusted the curves for the presence of competing risks with the Fine and Gray analysis.

Results: After the matching procedure, 2,890 patients were included in the analysis (1,445 in each group). Baseline characteristics were similar for all covariates including: age, diabetes, BMI, Center-experience, coronary artery disease, cancer, literacy, hypertension, race, previous HD, gender, pre-dialysis care, family income, peripheral artery disease and year of starting PD. Mortality rate was higher in CAPD patients (SHR1.44 CI95%1.21-1.71) compared to APD, but no difference was observed for technique failure (SHR0.83 CI95%0.69-1.02) nor for time till the first peritonitis episode (SHR0.96 CI95%0.93-1.11).

Conclusion: In the first large PD cohort study with groups balanced for several covariates using propensity score matching, PD modality was not associated with differences in neither time to first peritonitis nor in technique failure. Nevertheless, patient survival was significantly better in APD patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: AF has received consulting fees and a speaker honorarium from Baxter Healthcare. PB has received consulting fees and a speaker honorarium from Baxter Healthcare. RPF has received research grants, consulting fees and speaker honorarium from Baxter Healthcare. TPM has received consulting fees and speaker honorarium from Baxter Healthcare. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study Population.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Standardized differences of means between covariates before and after match.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Clinical outcomes for Peritoneal Dialysis Modality.
Legend: p values for overall mortality and cardiovascular mortality are < 0.01; for technique failure is 0.27 and for time to first peritonitis episode is 0.57.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Blood pressure behavior along the study period.
Legend: Markers represent mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure whilst error bars represents confidence interval 95%. The bottom box indicates the absolute number of patients included in the analysis per group.

References

    1. Oo TN, Roberts TL, Collins AJ (2005) A comparison of peritonitis rates from the United States Renal Data System database: CAPD versus continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 45: 372–380. - PubMed
    1. Nessim SJ, Bargman JM, Austin PC, Nisenbaum R, Jassal SV (2009) Predictors of peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis: results of a large, prospective Canadian database. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 1195–1200. 10.2215/CJN.00910209 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lan PG, Johnson DW, McDonald SP, Boudville N, Borlace M, Badve SV, et al. (2014) The association between peritoneal dialysis modality and peritonitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1091–1097. 10.2215/CJN.09730913 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bieber SD, Burkart J, Golper TA, Teitelbaum I, Mehrotra R (2014) Comparative outcomes between continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis: a narrative review. Am J Kidney Dis 63: 1027–1037. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.11.025 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mujais S, Story K (2006) Patient and technique survival on peritoneal dialysis in patients with failed renal allograft: a case-control study. Kidney Int Suppl: S133–137. - PubMed