The use of peritoneal dialysis in heart failure: A systematic review

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Extracorporeal (EC) therapy, including ultrafiltration (UF) and haemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and peritoneal ultrafiltration (PUF) are potential therapeutic options in diuretic-resistant states. This systematic review assessed outcomes of PD and compared the effects of PD to EC. A comprehensive search of major databases from 1966 to 2017 for studies utilising PD (or PUF) in diuretic-resistant HF was conducted, excluding studies involving patients with end-stage kidney disease. Data were extracted and combined using a random-effects model, expressed as odds ratio (OR). Thirty-one studies (n = 902) were identified from 3195 citations. None were randomised trials. Survival was variable (0-100%) with a wide follow-up duration (36 h-10 years). With follow-up > 1 year, the overall mortality was 48.3%. Only four studies compared PD with EC. Survival was 42.1% with PD and 45.0% with EC; the pooled effect did not favour either (OR 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-2.69; p = 0.710). Studies on PD in patients with HF reported several benefits. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved after PD (OR 3.76, 95%CI: 2.24-5.27; p < 0.001). Seven of nine studies saw LVEF increase by > 10%. Twenty-one studies reported the New York Heart Association status and 40-100% of the patients improved by ≥ 1 grade. Nine of 10 studies reported reductions in hospitalisation frequency and/or duration. When treated with PD, HF patients had fewer symptoms, lower hospital admissions and duration compared to diuretic therapy. However, there is inadequate evidence comparing PD versus UF or HD. Further studies comparing these modalities in diuretic-resistant HF should be conducted.

Keywords: Diuretics; haemodialysis; heart failure; peritoneal dialysis; systematic review; ultrafiltration.