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
. 2022 Apr 5;12(1):5657.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09462-9.

Assessing mechanical catheter dysfunction in automated tidal peritoneal dialysis using cycler software: a case control, proof-of-concept study

Affiliations

Assessing mechanical catheter dysfunction in automated tidal peritoneal dialysis using cycler software: a case control, proof-of-concept study

Krystell Oviedo Flores et al. Sci Rep. .

Erratum in

Abstract

New recommendations on evaluation of peritoneal membrane function suggest ruling out catheter dysfunction when evaluating patients with low ultrafiltration capacity. We introduce the use of a combination of parameters obtained from the cycler software PD Link with HomeChoicePro (Baxter International Inc., Illinois, United States) cyclers for predicting catheter dysfunction in automated peritoneal dialysis patients (APD). Out of 117 patients treated at the Medical University of Vienna between 2015 and 2021, we retrospectively identified all patients with verified catheter dysfunction (n = 14) and compared them to controls without clinical evidence of mechanical catheter problems and a recent X-ray confirming PD catheter tip in the rectovesical/rectouterine space (n = 19). All patients had a coiled single-cuff PD catheter, performed tidal PD, and received neutral pH bicarbonate/lactate-buffered PD fluids with low-glucose degradation products on APD. Icodextrin-containing PD fluids were used for daytime dwells. We retrieved cycler data for seven days each and tested parameters' predictive capability of catheter dysfunction. Total number of alarms/week > 7 as single predictive parameter of catheter dislocation identified 85.7% (sensitivity) of patients with dislocated catheter, whereas 31.6% (1-specificity) of control patients were false positive. A combination of parameters (number of alarms/week > 7, total drain time > 22 min, ultrafiltration of last fill < 150 mL) where at least two of three parameters appeared identified the same proportion of patients with catheter dislocation, but was more accurate in identifying controls (21.1% false positive). In contrast to yearly PET measurements, an easily applicable combination of daily cycler readout parameters, also available in new APD systems connected to remote monitoring platforms shows potential for diagnosis of catheter dysfunction during routine follow-up.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

A.V. has received honoraria and travel grants from Baxter and Fresenius and consulting fees from Baxter unrelated to this study. C.A. is cofounder of Zytoprotec GmbH, a spin-off of the Medical University Vienna that holds the patent “Carbohydrate-based peritoneal dialysis fluid comprising glutamine residue” (International Publication Number: WO 2008/106702 A1). M.U. and K.K. are former employees, K.K. is a consultant of Zytoprotec GmbH. K.O.F. is PhD candidate at the Medical University of Vienna and also employee of Baxter Healthcare GmbH, funded as early-stage researcher by the IMPROVE-PD (812699)/Horizon 2020 project. Baxter Healthcare did neither participate in the development of the protocol and study design, nor in the analysis of data or elaboration of the manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the parameters obtained from APD cycler card management software in the cases and the controls. The arrow indicates the point corresponding to the cut-off value selected. AUC = area under the curve. (a) Total number of alarms per week; (b) total drain time at the end of cycler session; (c) mean net UF of last fill; (d) days with negative UF of last fill; (e) mean gcUF during cycler treatment (*not included in further analysis).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of cases and controls selection.

References

    1. Brown EA, et al. International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis practice recommendations: Prescribing high-quality goal-directed peritoneal dialysis. Perit. Dial. Int. 2020;40:244–253. doi: 10.1177/0896860819895364. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Béchade C, et al. Early failure in patients starting peritoneal dialysis: A competing risks approach. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2014;29:2127–2135. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft055. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Palomar R, et al. The position of the peritoneal dialysis catheter is not essential for a correct performance. Clin. Nephrol. 2008;70:554–557. doi: 10.5414/cnp70554. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Castellanos LB, et al. Clinical relevance of intraperitoneal pressure in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit. Dial. Int. 2017;37:562–567. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2016.00267. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morelle J, et al. ISPD recommendations for the evaluation of peritoneal membrane dysfunction in adults: Classification, measurement, interpretation and rationale for intervention. Perit. Dial. Int. 2021;40:352-372. doi: 10.1177/0896860820982218. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types