Results in Assisted Peritoneal

Dialysis: A Ten-Year Experience
Sara Querido,1 Patrícia Quadros Branco,2 Elisabete Costa,2 Sara Pereira,2
Maria Augusta Gaspar,2 and José Diogo Barata2
1Department of Nephrology Centro Hospitalar do M´edio Tejo, Avenida Xanana Gusm˜ao, Apartado 45,
2350-754 Torres Novas, Portugal
2Department of Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Carnaxide, Portugal

Dr. Rakhmi Tika P*
Dr. Atma Gunawan, SpPD-KGH**
*Resident of Internal Medicine Department, Saiful Anwar Hospital,
Brawijaya University
**Supervisor, Nephrology Division, Internal Medicine Department,
Saiful Anwar Hospital, Brawijaya University

Most developed countries have seen a
continuous growth in the number of
patients with endstage renal disease
(ESRD) commencing renal replacement
therapy (RRT).
In Portugal in 2014, almost 60% of patients
starting dialysis were over the age of 65
years and only 8,73% of all incident
patients started PD. Despite this increase in
the number of elderly and dependent
patients who need RRT.

from PD as:  Avoid travelling to dialysis centers. . specially.  Improve blood pressure control.  Diminish the risk of central venous catheter-associated bacteremia. Introductio n Elderly and dependent patients benefit.  Diminish the bacterial translocation and myocardial stunning.  Reduce hemodynamic instability.

and hearing). dementia. decreased manual dexterity. Cognitive barriers (language. 2. Introduction Such a population cohort is susceptible to: 1. mobility. . and psychiatric conditions). Several physical barriers (decreased strength to lift PDbags. and decreased vision. non compliance.

Introduction First successful French experience (when home care nurses treated elderly patients with assisted CAPD) assisted PD (aPD) became a valuable alternative to provide successful RRT for old and dependent patients. considering the clinical outcomes of this technique in a single Portuguese center. . The aim  Evaluate the results of the aPD program. offered as first option or last resort to elderly or physically incapable end-stage renal disease patients.

clinical. This study analyzed demographic. and patient and technique survival through research in clinical processes. and laboratory parameters. hospitalizations. complications with the technique. . Material and Methods Retrospective study performed at a single PD Unity in Portugal (PD Unity of Hospital de Santa Cruz. Carnaxide. Portugal) Population: 200 adult incident patients admitted during 10 years (2004–2014) to the PD program.

Technique failure classified the dropout from aPD to Hemodialysis due to peritoneal membrane failure or peritonitis. . Unadjusted analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meiermethod to analyse technique survival between self-care and aPD patients.Material and Methods The degree of dependence was analyzed through the application of the Davies Score and Karnofsky Index.

Material and Methods Categorical variables were described as numbers or percentage of relative frequencies and quantitative variables as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous normally distributed variables. A � value of < 0. .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

The patients were under PD for 36.7%. kt/V weekly was 2.88 ± 0.43 months.98 ± 31.Result The Davies Score was greater than 2 in 52. The residual renal function .30 g/Kg/day. Karnofsky Index was less than 70 in 64. Peritoneal equilibration test (PET) was performed in 14 patients: 8 were low- average and 6 were high-average transporters.9%.60 and nPCR was 0. 4 of them had an acute onset of the technique.22 ± 0.


59 episodes/patient/year. 2 patients had a tunnel infection. The global hospitalization rate was higher in helped than in nonhelped patients: 0.45 episodes/patient/year (� = NS).67 versus 0. . and 9 patients had one or more episodes of exit-site infection.Result Half of the patients have never had a peritonitis episode.4 versus 0. The global peritonitis rate was lower in helped than in nonhelped patients: 0.

3%.7% versus 95.1%. and 68. respectively (� = NS). 2. 89%. 3. and 82% at 1.3%. and 72. Result Technique survival in helped patients versus nonhelped patients was 92. 2.7%. and 4 years. Patient survival in helped patients versus nonhelped patients was 93. . 3. 92. respectively (� = NS).7% versus 91. at 1.9% 93. 93.3%.9%.3%.3%. 72. 81. and 4 years.3%.7%. 83. 93. and 74.1%.



4 versus 0. . and 48th months) and hospitalization rate but a better performance in terms of peritonitis incidence and technique survival. Discussion Our study showed that assisted-care PD patients had a poorer outcome in terms of patient survival (12th. 24th. the global peritonitis rate was lower in helped than in nonhelped patients (0. In this study.59 episodes/patient/year).

with peritonitis being the most frequent cause of hospitalization. This fact could be explained by the high comorbidity index in the aPD patients. Discussion Lobbedez et al  A higher percentage of aPD patients (79%) were hospitalized during the first followup year. Our results are similar to the literature with a global hospitalization rate higher in helped than in nonhelped. .

The patient who died earlier was a dependent patient with a severe heart disease.3% in the first 3 years under technique. the survival rate was 93. In our study. Discussion Lobbedez et al  Reported 83% 1-year survival of aPD patients at their center. . with 2 patients remained on aPD for more than 7 years.

no significant differences were found in self-care elderly and nonelderly patients in terms of survival and technique survival. The RDPLF report showed that patients under assisted-care. between elderly and younger patients. . either by family members or by nurses. technique survival. and peritonitis rate . had a poorer survival rate than self care patients. In a HongKong research. Discussion PD shows no difference in patient survival.

not forgetting that some of them are young people with a considerable life expectancy. cognitive. increasing the number of patients who can choose an appropriate treatment despite their physical. Necessary to adopt measures and institutional support to care for these patients. Conclusion Assistance gives dependent patients an opportunity to have a home-based dialysis modality. despite cognitive or motor deficits. and social conditions. .

Thank You .