Key result
Automated peritoneal dialysis showed no difference in patient survival (100% vs 100%) or technique survival (21/22 vs 22/22) compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis over a 2-year follow-up.
Why the study?
Does automated peritoneal dialysis improve patient and technique survival compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease?
Cohort (n=44)
No
Does automated peritoneal dialysis improve patient and technique survival compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 95.5% vs 100%
Automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis offer similar 2-year patient and technique survival, though APD may be associated with fewer peritonitis episodes and better preservation of serum albumin.
Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is increasingly being used for the treatment of end stage renal disease. We present our experience of APD at a government run tertiary care institute. APD was initiated for 22 patients between 2002 and 2010. On comparing APD and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients, no difference in patient survival and technique survival was observed. CAPD patients had higher number of peritonitis episodes, greater decline in the serum albumin and a greater number of patients failed to achieve adequacy targets compared to APD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ram et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in End stage renal disease (n=44). Automated peritoneal dialysis vs. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was evaluated on Completion of 2 years follow-up or discontinuation of PD due to a complication. Automated peritoneal dialysis showed no difference in patient survival (100% vs 100%) or technique survival (21/22 vs 22/22) compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis over a 2-year follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: