Objective:To analyze the available evidence on the relevant clinical and economic aspects of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (US-PD) compared to urgent-start hemodialysis (US-HD).Material and methods: Rapid systematic review with searches in: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov.The included studies were evaluated with quality tools.Relative risk (RR) was summarized, and meta-analysis of results was performed, when possible.Results: 1,303 articles were identified, 939 were screened by title and abstract, 29 were evaluated in full-text and 16 were selected.A total of 2,179 patients participated in the selected studies, 1,087 in the US-PD group, 915 in the US-HD group, and 177 in the PD after US-HD group.US-PD has beneficial effects, such as reducing one-year mortality (RR, 0.69; 95%CI: 0.51-0.92).There is no evidence to suggest US-PD increases the risk of complications in unplanned dialysis.On the contrary, there is an association between the practice of US-PD and a lower risk of undesirable outcomes compared to HD with a central venous catheter.Limited and heterogeneous economic evidence suggests that there is no incremental impact on costs.Conclusions: US-PD can be an effective, safe and accessible option for urgent initiation of dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease who require unplanned initiation of dialysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ariza-Lozano et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: