Epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis outcomes

Abstract

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important home-based treatment for kidney failure and accounts for 11% of all dialysis and 9% of all kidney replacement therapy globally. Although PD is available in 81% of countries, this provision ranges from 96% in high-income countries to 32% in low-income countries. Compared with haemodialysis, PD has numerous potential advantages, including a simpler technique, greater feasibility of use in remote communities, generally lower cost, lesser need for trained staff, fewer management challenges during natural disasters, possibly better survival in the first few years, greater ability to travel, fewer dietary restrictions, better preservation of residual kidney function, greater treatment satisfaction, better quality of life, better outcomes following subsequent kidney transplantation, delayed need for vascular access (especially in small children), reduced need for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and lower risk of blood-borne virus infections and of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PD outcomes have been improving over time but with great variability, driven by individual and system-level inequities and by centre effects; this variation is exacerbated by a lack of standardized outcome definitions. Potential strategies for outcome improvement include enhanced standardization, monitoring and reporting of PD outcomes, and the implementation of continuous quality improvement programmes and of PD-specific interventions, such as incremental PD, the use of biocompatible PD solutions and remote PD monitoring.

Abstract

The use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be advantageous compared with haemodialysis treatment, although several barriers limit its broad implementation. This review examines the epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis (PD) outcomes, including clinical, patient-reported and surrogate PD outcomes.

Key points

• Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has distinct advantages compared with haemodialysis, including the convenience of home treatment, improved quality of life, technical simplicity, lesser need for trained staff, greater cost-effectiveness in most countries, improved equity of access to dialysis in resource-limited settings, and improved survival, particularly in the first few years of initiating therapy.

• Important barriers can hamper PD utilization in low-income settings, including the high costs of PD fluids (owing to the inability to manufacture them locally and the exorbitant costs of their import), limited workforce availability and a practice culture that limits optimal PD use, often leading to suboptimal outcomes.

• PD outcomes are highly variable around the world owing in part to the use of variable outcome definitions, a heterogeneous practice culture, the lack of standardized monitoring and reporting of quality indicators, and kidney failure care gaps (including health care workforce shortages, inadequate health care financing, suboptimal governance and a lack of good health care information systems).

• Key outcomes include not only clinical outcomes (typically defined as medical outcomes based on clinician assessment or diagnosis) — for example, PD-related infections, technique survival, mechanical complications, hospitalizations and PD-related mortality — but also patient-reported outcomes. These outcomes are directly reported by patients and focus on how they function or feel, typically in relation to quality of life or symptoms; patient-reported outcomes are used less frequently than clinical outcomes in day-to-day routine care.