Peritoneal Dialysis: A Home-Based Therapy Option with Improving Outcomes in Older As Well As Younger Patients
- 1. Department of Renal Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- 2. Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Aim: To evaluate the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of peritoneal dialysis as a home-based dialysis care option in older patients as well as younger patients after initiation of a nurse led Home before Hospital model of care.
Methods: Because peritoneal dialysis is reputedly less effective for older patients, especially those with comorbidities, clinical data (demographics, peritoneal dialysis modality, complications, reasons for technique failure / discontinuation of peritoneal dialysis and other clinical and outcome measures) was collected over 8 years until December 2019 in a cohort of 317 patients (324 episodes of care) and compared between two age group categories (< 60 years (younger (n= 149)) and > 60 years (older (n=168)) both descriptively and analytically.
Results: Diabetes (as a diagnosis or a comorbid condition (n=134) was more common in the older group (p<.007) as was death (n=76) as an outcome (p<.001). Progression to transplantation (n=77) was more likely in the younger (p<.001) but the reasons for transfer to hemodialysis (n=59) was not different between the groups including peritonitis (n=16) or membrane failure (n=5). The technique failure rate when censored for death favored the older group (HR=0.74 (CI 95% (0.44 - 1.23)) but not significantly so (p=.246) and the death-censored technique survival rate in the older group exceeded 75% at 3 years.
Conclusion: Using a nurse-led model of care, an extremely high level of transition to a sustainable and successful home-based therapy (centered on peritoneal dialysis) can be achieved in older as well as younger patients.
Ellis J, Tregaskis P, Manefield K, Buena T, Ng Y, et al. (2020) Peritoneal Dialysis: A Home-Based Therapy Option with Improving Outcomes in Older As Well As Younger Patients. JSM Renal Med 3(1): 1014.
• Home-based therapy
• Peritoneal dialysis
• Model of care
PD: Peritoneal Dialysis; CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease; APD: Automated Peritoneal Dialysis; CAPD: Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis
World-wide the population is aging. In Australasia for example, the population >=65 years of age is increasing rapidly and has doubled from 9.3% in 1950 to 17.5% in 2015 . Paralleling the ageing population is an increasing prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) [2,3], which is very common amongst the elderly [4,5]. The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle AusDiab population study  indicated that 1 in 3 of individuals >65 years of age have an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (Stage 3 CKD)  and in the United States 47% of individuals > 70 years of age have been estimated to have CKD . Furthermore, in Western societies [1,9,10], more than half of the patients commencing dialysis are > 65 years of age, and of the prevalent Australasian dialysis population nearly 40% are aged over 65 .
Because static mortality rates , quality of life issues [11,12] deteriorating functional status , high hospitalisation rates and outcomes have been generally considered to be poor in the elderly (especially those with multiple comorbidities and frailty) questions have continued to be raised about the justification of expensive renal replacement for these patients especially when dialysis may actually worsen outcomes. [13,14] The financial burden of CKD (especially end-stage CKD) is also a major issue for health systems [15,16]. In the US; of the 100 billion dollars annual expenditure on CKD, 34 billion is spent on maintenance dialysis , where 90% of the current dialysis populations (~ 500,000 individuals) are receiving maintenance in-center hemodialysis. In patients choosing dialysis as an option, encouraging home based therapies, especially peritoneal dialysis  is one way of reducing costs and is certainly significantly cheaper than in center hemodialysis in most jurisdictions [19-22].
There is steadily accumulating evidence that clinical outcomes for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis are equivalent [23-27] or perhaps even better than for patients treated with conventional in-center hemodialysis [27,28]. Facilitating and supporting a home-based therapy, may certainly help patients ‘cope with the challenges’ of ESKD care  and such facilitation also acknowledges that a home-based care such as peritoneal dialysis is often the preferred dialysis option for many patients including the elderly [29-34].
Advantages of peritoneal dialysis (PD) as renal replacement therapy have been shown in younger patients [24,35] and include the provision of an excellent bridge to kidney transplantation [36,37]. The demonstration of benefits in older patients , is not so well or consistently established (especially in patients with frailty [39,40] or high co-morbidity burden  such as diabetes ) although the theoretical and reported advantages still appear numerous. [14,39,42-44]. Preservation of residual kidney function (a feature of peritoneal dialysis [34,45]) in patients commencing dialysis has been associated with improved early [46,47] patient survival and possibly longer term survival  although mechanistically the relationship between mortality and residual kidney function remains not well understood [49-52].
We previously (2012) implemented a re-design project specifically to facilitate home-based therapies with a major focus on peritoneal dialysis at our institution. The project “Home before Hospital” embraced a whole of system change with a focus on early nurse-led education both prior to and post initiation of therapy and ensuring that a home before hospital philosophy underpinned all approaches to dialysis care including nurse-led continuing support after commencement of the therapy. Nearly the entire uptake of home therapies (incident home therapy rate now >50% and prevalent home therapy increasing from 15 % to >35%) was in peritoneal dialysis (Figure 1)).
The present study therefore aims to not only evaluate the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of peritoneal dialysis as a home-based dialysis care option but because peritoneal dialysis is reputedly less effective for older patients (35, 39-41), especially those with comorbidities and frailty, to review specifically outcomes in older patients compared to younger patients.
STUDY DESIGN, PATIENTS AND METHODS
All patients commenced on maintenance peritoneal dialysis at Alfred Health from December 2011 after initiation of a Home before Hospital model of care have had key clinical data collected prospectively (demographics, peritoneal dialysis modality, complications, reasons for technique failure / discontinuation of peritoneal dialysis and other clinical and outcome measures). The cohort includes 317 patients (324 episodes of care) up until the end of 2019. The details of the patient cohort and progression of care on peritoneal dialysis are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1
Based on the age distribution of the peritoneal dialysis population (Figure 3), for this study, the population has been sub divided into two Age Group categories (< 60 years (younger) and > 60 years (older)) for comparisons which were both descriptive and analytical and were performed with STATA 14 (Statistics/ Data Analysis), Statacorp, College Station, TX, USA. Intergroup comparisons for continuous variables were analysed with t-tests and Chi-2 or Fisher’s exact test was used for comparisons of categorical variables. Patient and event characteristics were expressed as mean 1 SD or n (%) for categorical ones. Time to development of discontinuation of peritoneal dialysis (technique failure) and other survival analyses were evaluated using the Cox’s Proportional Hazards regression model. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS
Between December 2011 and December 2019, 324 episodes of care in 317 patients were carried out. Currently, 95 individuals remain on peritoneal dialysis, 80 patients (23.4%) have received a kidney transplant, 76 (22.7%) have died and 59 of 324 episodes of care (18.7%) ended with transfer to hemodialysis Figure 2 details the evolution of the episodes of care (and individual patients) considered in the analysis. Baseline characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1 along and descriptive and statistical summary of the whole population of the two Age Group sub-cohorts in Table 2.
Whilst most patients were using APD, those in the older age group were more likely to be treated with CAPD compared to the younger age group (p=.022). The proportions of patients with diabetes, either as a primary renal disease diagnosis or as a comorbidity was not surprisingly, higher in the older Age Group (p=.007). Similarly, the likelihood of transplantation was significantly greater in the younger Age group (P<.001) and the proportion of patients dying and or withdrawing from care over the observations period was greater in the older age Group (P<.001).
Of the patient episodes of care that translated to a transfer to hemodialysis, the reasons were broadly similar between the two Age Groups. The numbers of patients were small in nearly all reason categories. Perhaps most notably, peritonitis as a cause of a need to transfer to hemodialysis was similar as were peritoneal membrane failures.
The patient survival and sustainability of the technique are summarised in a series of Kaplan Meier survival plots (Figures 4-6). Patient survival (Figure 4) was inferior for older patients where the hazard ratio HR (hazard ratio (95% CI)) for death was 2.53 (1.56 - 4.30) compared to the younger age group. The 50 percent survival for older patients exceeded 3 years. Censoring the data for death has a major effect on technique failure (survival). Compared to patients < 60 years of age not death censored, the HR for technique failure were 0.74 (0.44 - 1.23) p=.246; 1.58 (1.01-2.48) p=.046 and 2.32 (1.54 -3.50; p75% at 3 years.
Table 1: Peritoneal Dialysis Population Demographics.
|Patient Cohort (n=317)||Mean age (+/- SD)||58.4 (+/- 15.5) years|
|Gender [Male %]||M: 206 F: 111 [65.1 %]|
|Modality [APD %]||APD: 290 CAPD :27 [91.5 %]|
|Episodes of Care (n=324)||Mean age (+/- SD)||58.4 +/- 15.5 years|
|Gender [Male %]||M: 211 F: 113 [65.3 %]|
|Modality [APD %]||APD: 297 CAPD: 27 [91.7 %]|
|APD: Automated Peritoneal Dialysis; CAPD: Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis|
The reasons for choosing or not choosing a particular dialysis modality (or indeed any modality at all ) are very complex [30,54-61] and perhaps more complex in the elderly . One of the influences particularly affecting modality choice in the elderly is the likely accumulated hospitalized time on in-center hemodialysis; nearly 50% in some estimates [63-66]. Despite a burgeoning population of elderly patients requiring dialysis care, relatively few patients are actually offered home-based therapy in the form of peritoneal dialysis [31,67,68] even though older patients can manage the therapy well and can achieve good clinical and patient-relevant outcomes  with many opting for more flexibility  and less disturbances in their daily lives .
The need to develop strategies that promote a psychosocial profile of self-efficacy  and self-esteem and therefore the required resilience and confidence  may be important for successful home-based dialysis, especially as adverse psychosocial issues are prominent as a cause of discontinuation in the early phases of treatment  with peritoneal dialysis. A sense of self-preference is also seminal to longer term survival on the therapy . Early and repeated quality education [72, 76- 85], a characteristic of our Home before Hospital initiative may have the effect of encouraging the uptake of a PD home-based therapy, [86,87] as does the insight of clinicians to enable patients to make a choice [42,83, 88,89]. In addition, multidisciplinary education affects outcomes (mortality and use of central venous catheters, peritonitis, hospitalizations) favorably [87, 90,91] and may also provide cost savings . From our experience over eight years, having a system-wide approach to care with early education and supporting patients in decision making may have been important in improving rates of successful home-based care across all age groups.
Important quality measures on peritoneal dialysis include peritonitis rates. Although the data is not shown State-wide key performance measures of peritonitis rates have indicated our institutional performance  consistently < 0.25 episodes/ patient/year. What is shown in the current study is a low rate of conversion from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis where ‘peritonitis’ is the nominated reason. Importantly there were no differences in rates between older and younger patients as identified in other studies [69,94]. The quality and effectiveness of the peritoneal home-based therapy was also measured by sustainability of the therapy (technique survival (failure)), where interestingly when censored for death, the technique survival was excellent in older patients although not significantly better than in younger patients.
The number of episodes of care where patients ceased dialysis included 78 of 213 (36.6%) related directly to renal transplantation (Table 2). This is a highly desirable outcome and exceeds the national comparative figures tabulated annually in the ANZDATA registry which vary from 23.5% and 27.5% (2013-2017)  and averaged over the 13 years to 2012 at 14.5% . Even the rate of proceeding to transplantation in older patients; 23 patients (>60 years of age) of 109 events (22.1%) is quite commend worthy. Transplantation of patients <60 years of age (54 patients of 104 cessation events (49.5%)) is an excellent rate and has important financial implications if transition to transplantation via hemodialysis is no be avoided although in five instances, peritoneal dialysis was supplemented by once/week hemodialysis in a hybrid therapy until transplantation occurred . Also, although the data is inconclusive, and the importance of individualising patient advice has been emphasised , some transplant outcomes (short and long-term) after peritoneal dialysis appear to be superior to hemodialysis [36,99-104].
Our study suffers from the limitations of being a single center cohort study. In addition, the model of care and experience might not necessarily be translatable to other jurisdictions. Nonetheless the number of episodes of peritoneal dialysis care is considerable and the outcomes observed are in most areas as good if not superior to other datasets such as recorded in ANZDATA [43,95].
Table 2: Comparative Demographics by Age Group.
|All Episodes of Care (n=324)||< 60 years (n=152)||> 60 years (n=172)||p value (60)|
|Age||Mean [SD]||58.4 +/- 15.5||44.8 +/- 10.2||70.5 +/- 7.0|
|Median [Range]||61.3 (18.7 - 90.2)||46.9 (18.7 - 59.9)||69.2 (60.2 - 90.2)|
|No Diabetes||190||101||89||p = .007|
|Modality||CAPD||27||7||20||p = .022|
|Withdrawal (& Death)||18||3||15|
|Transfer to Another Service||5||2||3||p = .789|
|Recovered Renal Function||6||5||1||p = .063|
|Transfer to Haemodialysis (Reason||Pleural Leak||11||5||6|
|Tunnel/Exit Site Infection||1||1||0|
At this stage we would be of the view that our model is providing a high level of successful transition to a home-based therapy (centered on peritoneal dialysis) across all age groups. Peritoneal dialysis as in the younger age group, also provides a bridge to transplantation and is a sustainable and successful therapy for older patients if they so choose. Additional qualitative research [105-107] might be needed to confirm the patient’s perception of the experience is consistent with these more traditional outcome measures.
This manuscript is dedicated to the life and selfless work of our esteemed nursing colleague Jacqueline Ellis who sadly died in 2018.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the substantial contributions of the entire renal team (nursing medical allied health and pharmacists) at Alfred Health for their contribution to the care of the patients in this study. All authors contributed to the collection and organization of the data for this study. RW, SW and PT were involved in data evaluation and analysis.
1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Prospects: the 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects: Age composition Population by Age Groups - Both Sexes (XLSX). available at https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/2017.
2. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Amin AN. Toward more accurate detection and risk stratification of chronic kidney disease. JAMA. 2012; 307:1976-1977.
3. Shah A, Molnar MZ, Kalantar-Zadeh K. It is not polite to ask a dialysis patient his age! Int Urol Nephrol. 2011; 43: 1101-1105.
4. Campbell KH, O’Hare AM. Kidney disease in the elderly: update on recent literature. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2008; 17: 298-303.
5. Bowling CB, Inker LA, Gutierrez OM, Allman RM, Warnock DG, McClellan W, et al. Age-specific associations of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate with concurrent chronic kidney disease complications. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011; 6: 2822-2828.
6. Chadban SJ, Briganti EM, Kerr PG, Dunstan DW, Welborn TA, Zimmet PZ, et al. Prevalence of kidney damage in Australian adults: The AusDiab kidney study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003; 14: S131-S138.
7. Levey AS, Inker LA, Coresh J. Chronic Kidney Disease in Older People. JAMA. 2015; 314: 557-558.
8. Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA, Manzi J, Kusek JW, Eggers P, et al. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2007; 298: 2038-2047.
9. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR): Annual Statistics. available at https:// www.cihi.ca/en/corr-annual-statistics-2017
10. Incidence of Renal Replacement Therapy for End Stage Kidney Disease. Thirty-eighth Report of the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA); Chapter1. available at http://www.anzdata.org.au/.
11. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Unruh M. Health related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Int Urol Nephrol. 2005; 37: 367-378.
12. Feroze U, Noori N, Kovesdy CP, Molnar MZ, Martin DJ, Reina-Patton A, et al. Quality-of-life and mortality in hemodialysis patients: roles of race and nutritional status. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011; 6: 1100- 1111.
13. Kim JC, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kopple JD. Frailty and protein-energy wasting in elderly patients with end stage kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 24: 337-351.
14. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kovesdy CP, Streja E, Rhee CM, Soohoo M, Chen JLT, et al. Transition of care from pre-dialysis prelude to renal replacement therapy: the blueprints of emerging research in advanced chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017; 32: ii91-ii98.
15. Levey AS, Atkins R, Coresh J, Cohen EP, Collins AJ, Eckardt KU, et al. Chronic kidney disease as a global public health problem: approaches and initiatives - a position statement from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. Kidney Int. 2007; 72: 247-259.
16. Menzin J, Lines LM, Weiner DE, Neumann PJ, Nichols C, Rodriguez L, et al. A review of the costs and cost effectiveness of interventions in chronic kidney disease: implications for policy. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29: 839-861.
17. United States Renal Data System (USRDS): 2017 Annual Report. Volume 1: Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States & Volume 2: End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. available at https:// www.usrds.org/adr.aspx. 2017
18. Aydede SK, Komenda P, Djurdjev O, Levin A. Chronic kidney disease and support provided by home care services: a systematic review. BMC Nephrol. 2014; 15: 118.
19. Collins AJ, Foley RN, Chavers B, Gilbertson D, Herzog C, Ishani A, et al. US Renal Data System 2013 Annual Data Report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014; 63: A7.
20. Howard K, Salkeld G, White S, McDonald S, Chadban S, Craig JC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2009; 14: 123-132.
21. Goeree R, Manalich J, Grootendorst P, Beecroft ML, Churchill DN. Cost analysis of dialysis treatments for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Clin Invest Med. 1995; 18: 455-464.
22. Berger A, Edelsberg J, Inglese GW, Bhattacharyya SK, Oster G. Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease. Am J Manag Care. 2009; 15: 509-518.
23. Yeates K, Zhu N, Vonesh E, Trpeski L, Blake P, Fenton S. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are associated with similar outcomes for end stage renal disease treatment in Canada. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012; 27: 3568-3575.
24. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, Collins AJ. Mortality studies comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: what do they tell us? Kidney Int Suppl. 2006; 103: S3-S11.
25. Stack AG, Murthy BV, Molony DA. Survival differences between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis among “large” ESRD patients in the United States. Kidney Int. 2004; 65: 2398-2408.
26. Chang YK, Hsu CC, Hwang SJ, Chen PC, Huang CC, Li TC, et al. A comparative assessment of survival between propensity score matched patients with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in Taiwan. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012; 91: 144-151.
27. Mehrotra R, Chiu YW, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Bargman J, Vonesh E. Similar outcomes with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 110-118.
28. Weinhandl ED, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Arneson TJ, Snyder JJ, Collins AJ. Propensity-matched mortality comparison of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010; 21: 499-506.
29. Prakash S, Perzynski AT, Austin PC, Wu CF, Lawless ME, Paterson JM, et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and barriers to peritoneal dialysis: a mixed methods study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 8: 1741- 1749.
30. Walker RC, Hanson CS, Palmer SC, Howard K, Morton RL, Marshall MR, et al. Patient and caregiver perspectives on home hemodialysis: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015; 65: 451-463.
31. Jager KJ, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, Krediet RT, Boeschoten EW. Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis Study G. The effect of contraindications and patient preference on dialysis modality selection in ESRD patients in The Netherlands. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004; 43: 891-899.
32. Maaroufi A, Fafin C, Mougel S, Favre G, Seitz-Polski B, Jeribi A, et al. Patients’ preferences regarding choice of end-stage renal disease treatment options. Am J Nephrol. 2013; 37: 359-369.
33. McLaughlin K, Jones H, VanderStraeten C, Mills C, Visser M, Taub K, et al. Why do patients choose self-care dialysis? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23: 3972-3976.
34. Korevaar JC, Boeschoten EW, Dekker FW, Krediet RT, Group NS. What have we learned from NECOSAD? Practical implications for peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int. 2007; 27: 11-15.
35. McDonald SP, Marshall MR, Johnson DW, Polkinghorne KR. Relationship between dialysis modality and mortality. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 20: 155-163.
36. Sezer S, Karakan S, Ozdemir Acar FN, Haberal M. Dialysis as a bridge therapy to renal transplantation: comparison of graft outcomes according to mode of dialysis treatment. Transplant Proc. 2011; 43: 485-487.
37. Domenici A, Comunian MC, Fazzari L, Sivo F, Dinnella A, Della Grotta B, et al. Incremental peritoneal dialysis favourably compares with hemodialysis as a bridge to renal transplantation. Int J Nephrol. 2011; 2011: 204-216.
38. Dimkovic N, Oreopoulos DG. Assisted peritoneal dialysis as a method of choice for elderly with end-stage renal disease. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008; 40: 1143-1150.
39. Brown EA, Finkelstein FO, Iyasere OU, Kliger AS. Peritoneal or hemodialysis for the frail elderly patient, the choice of 2 evils? Kidney Int. 2017; 91: 294-303.
40. Sy J, Johansen KL. The impact of frailty on outcomes in dialysis. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2017; 26: 537-542.
41. Huang CC, Cheng KF, Wu HD. Survival analysis: comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in Taiwan. Perit Dial Int. 2008; 28: S15-S20.
42. Jose MD, Johnson DW, Mudge DW, Tranaeus A, Voss D, Walker R, et al. Peritoneal dialysis practice in Australia and New Zealand: a call to action. Nephrology (Carlton). 2011; 16: 19-29.
43. Mudge DW, Boudville N, Brown F, Clayton P, Duddington M, Holt S, et al. Peritoneal dialysis practice in Australia and New Zealand: A call to sustain the action. Nephrology (Carlton). 2016; 21: 535-546.
44. Griva K, Yu Z, Chan S, Krisnasamy T, Yamin RB, Zakaria FB, et al. Age is not a contraindication to home-based dialysis - Quality-of-Life outcomes favour older patients on peritoneal dialysis regimes relative to younger patients. J Adv Nurs. 2014; 70: 1902-1914.
45. Tam P. Peritoneal dialysis and preservation of residual renal function. Perit Dial Int. 2009; 29: S108-S110.
46. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M, Morrison HI, Mao Y, Copleston P, et al. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997; 30: 334-342.
47. Van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Lameire N. The role of peritoneal dialysis as the first-line renal replacement modality. Perit Dial Int. 2000; 20: 375-383.
48. Madziarska K, Weyde W, Krajewska M, Zukowska Szczechowska E, Gosek K, Penar J, et al. Elderly dialysis patients: analysis of factors affecting long-term survival in 4-year prospective observation. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012; 44: 955-961.
49. Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN, Group CPDS. Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001; 12: 2158-2162.
50. Wang AY, Wang M, Woo J, Lam CW, Lui SF, Li PK, et al. Inflammation, residual kidney function, and cardiac hypertrophy are interrelated and combine adversely to enhance mortality and cardiovascular death risk of peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004; 15: 2186- 2194.
51. Shemin D, Bostom AG, Laliberty P, Dworkin LD. Residual renal function and mortality risk in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001; 38: 85-90.
52. Shemin D, Bostom AG, Lambert C, Hill C, Kitsen J, Kliger AS. Residual renal function in a large cohort of peritoneal dialysis patients: change over time, impact on mortality and nutrition. Perit Dial Int. 2000; 20: 439-444.
53. Morton RL, Snelling P, Webster AC, Rose J, Masterson R, Johnson DW, et al. Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease. CMAJ. 2012; 184: E277-E283.
54. Nakamura-Taira N, Muranaka Y, Miwa M, Kin S, Hirai K. Views of Japanese patients on the advantages and disadvantages of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2013; 45: 1145-1158.
55. Cousineau N, McDowell I, Hotz S, Hebert P. Measuring chronic patients’ feelings of being a burden to their caregivers: development and preliminary validation of a scale. Med Care. 2003; 41: 110-118.
56. Walker RC, Howard K, Morton RL. Patient Education and Choice of Peritoneal Dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016; 68: 341-343.
57. Ludlow MJ, George CR, Hawley CM, Mathew TH, Agar JW, Kerr PG, et al. How Australian nephrologists view home dialysis: results of a national survey. Nephrology (Carlton). 2011; 16: 446-452.
58. Bernardini J, Price V, Figueiredo A. International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis Nursing Liaison C. Peritoneal dialysis patient training, 2006. Perit Dial Int. 2006; 26: 625-632.
59. Morton RL, Devitt J, Howard K, Anderson K, Snelling P, Cass A. Patient views about treatment of stage 5 CKD: a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010; 55: 431-440.
60. Murray MA, Brunier G, Chung JO, Craig LA, Mills C, Thomas A, et al. A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 76: 149- 158.
61. Lee A, Gudex C, Povlsen JV, Bonnevie B, Nielsen CP. Patients’ views regarding choice of dialysis modality. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23: 3953-3959.
62. Dimkovic N, Oreopoulos D. Management of elderly patients with end stage kidney disease. Semin Nephrol. 2009; 29: 643-649.
63. Carson RC, Juszczak M, Davenport A, Burns A. Is maximum conservative management an equivalent treatment option to dialysis for elderly patients with significant comorbid disease? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4: 1611-1619.
64. Tonkin-Crine S, Okamoto I, Leydon GM, Murtagh FE, Farrington K, Caskey F, et al. Understanding by older patients of dialysis and conservative management for chronic kidney failure. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015; 65: 443-450.
65. Tam-Tham H, Quinn RR, Weaver RG, Zhang J, Ravani P, Liu P, et al. Survival among older adults with kidney failure is better in the first three years with chronic dialysis treatment than not. Kidney Int. 2018. 94: 582-588.
66. O’Hare AM, Batten A, Burrows NR, Pavkov ME, Taylor L, Gupta I, et al. Trajectories of kidney function decline in the 2 years before initiation of long-term dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012; 59: 513-522.
67. Laplante S, Krepel H, Simons B, Nijhoff A, van Liere R, Simons M. Offering assisted peritoneal dialysis is a cost-effective alternative to the current care pathway in frail elderly Dutch patients. Int J Healthc Manag. 2013; 6: 27-36.
68. Yang X, Fang W, Kothari J, Khandelwal M, Naimark D, Jassal SV, et al. Clinical outcomes of elderly patients undergoing chronic peritoneal dialysis: experiences from one center and a review of the literature. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007; 39: 1295-1302.
69. Lai S, Amabile MI, Bargagli MB, Musto TG, Martinez A, Testorio M, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in older adults: Evaluation of clinical, nutritional, metabolic outcomes, and quality of life. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97: e11953.
70. Loeffert S, Ommen O, Kuch C, Scheibler F, Woehrmann A, Baldamus C, et al. Configural frequency analysis as a method of determining patients’ preferred decision-making roles in dialysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10: 47.
71. Chanouzas D, Ng KP, Fallouh B, Baharani J. What influences patient choice of treatment modality at the pre-dialysis stage? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012; 27: 1542-1547.
72. Liang CH, Yang CY, Lu KC, Chu P, Chen CH, Chang YS, et al. Factors affecting peritoneal dialysis selection in Taiwanese patients with chronic kidney disease. Int Nurs Rev. 2011; 58: 463-469.
73. Tong A, Lesmana B, Johnson DW, Wong G, Campbell D, Craig JC. The perspectives of adults living with peritoneal dialysis: thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013; 61: 873-888.
74. Kolesnyk I, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT. Time-dependent reasons for peritoneal dialysis technique failure and mortality. Perit Dial Int. 2010; 30: 170-177.
75. Unsal A, Basturk T, Koc Y, Sinangil A, Ahbap E, Sakaci T, et al. Factors associated with above and under 5-year survival in peritoneal dialysis patients. Ren Fail. 2012; 34: 1129-1134.
76. Walker RC, Marshall MR. Increasing the uptake of peritoneal dialysis in New Zealand: a national survey. J Ren Care. 2014; 40: 40-48.
77. Manns BJ, Taub K, Vanderstraeten C, Jones H, Mills C, Visser M, et al. The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients’ plans to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis: a randomized trial. Kidney Int. 2005; 68: 1777-1783.
78. Goovaerts T, Jadoul M, Goffin E. Influence of a pre-dialysis education programme (PDEP) on the mode of renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005; 20: 1842-1847.
79. Lacson E, Jr., Wang W, DeVries C, Leste K, Hakim RM, Lazarus M, et al. Effects of a nationwide predialysis educational program on modality choice, vascular access, and patient outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011; 58: 235-242.
80. Chen YR, Yang Y, Wang SC, Chiu PF, Chou WY, Lin CY, et al. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary care for chronic kidney disease in Taiwan: a 3-year prospective cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013; 28: 671-682.
81. Bargman JM. Timing of Initiation of RRT and Modality Selection. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015; 10: 1072-1077.
82. Li WY, Wang YC, Hwang SJ, Lin SH, Wu KD, Chen YM. Comparison of outcomes between emergent-start and planned-start peritoneal dialysis in incident ESRD patients: a prospective observational study. BMC Nephrol. 2017; 18: 359.
83. McKane WS. Should Nephrologists Promote Peritoneal Dialysis as a Bridge to Transplantation? Perit Dial Int. 2017; 37: 247-249.
84. Rubin HR, Fink NE, Plantinga LC, Sadler JH, Kliger AS, Powe NR. Patient ratings of dialysis care with peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis. JAMA. 2004; 291: 697-703.
85. Goodlad C, Brown E. The role of peritoneal dialysis in modern renal replacement therapy. Postgrad Med J. 2013; 89: 584-590.
86. Golper T. Patient education: can it maximize the success of therapy? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001; 16: 20-24.
87. Levin A, Lewis M, Mortiboy P, Faber S, Hare I, Porter EC, et al. Multidisciplinary predialysis programs: quantification and limitations of their impact on patient outcomes in two Canadian settings. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997; 29: 533-540.
88. Ghaffari A, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Lee J, Maddux F, Moran J, Nissenson A. PD First: peritoneal dialysis as the default transition to dialysis therapy. Semin Dial. 2013; 26: 706-713.
89. Mehrotra R, Devuyst O, Davies SJ, Johnson DW. The Current State of Peritoneal Dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016; 27: 3238-3252.
90. Hsu CK, Lee CC, Chen YT, Ting MK, Sun CY, Chen CY, et al. Multidisciplinary predialysis education reduces incidence of peritonitis and subsequent death in peritoneal dialysis patients: 5-year cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0202781.
91. Wu IW, Wang SY, Hsu KH, Lee CC, Sun CY, Tsai CJ, et al. Multidisciplinary predialysis education decreases the incidence of dialysis and reduces mortality--a controlled cohort study based on the NKF/DOQI guidelines. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009; 24: 3426-3433.
92. Yu YJ, Wu IW, Huang CY, Hsu KH, Lee CC, Sun CY, et al. Multidisciplinary predialysis education reduced the inpatient and total medical costs of the first 6 months of dialysis in incident hemodialysis patients. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e112820.
93. Victorian renal key performance indicators: KPI 4_Peritonitis rates of each hub service. available at: https://www.bettersafercare.vic.gov. au/reports. SCV (Safer Care Victoria); 2020.
94. Hiramatsu M, Ishida M, Tonozuka Y, Mikami H, Yamanari T, Momoki N, et al. Application of peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients by classifying the age into young-old, old, and oldest-old. Contrib Nephrol. 2012; 177: 48-56.
95. ANZDATA Registry. 41st Report, Chapter 5: Peritoneal dialysis. 2018. available at: http://www.anzdata.org.au Adelaide, Australia.: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry; 2018.
96. Nadeau-Fredette AC, Hawley C, Pascoe E, Chan CT, Leblanc M, Clayton PA, et al. Predictors of Transfer to Home Hemodialysis after Peritoneal Dialysis Completion. Perit Dial Int. 2016; 36: 547-554.
97. Wilson S, Tregaskis P, Walker R. Hybrid dialysis to extend peritoneal therapy within sight of renal transplantation. Clin Nephrol. 2019; 92: 216-217.
98. Fuquay R, Teitelbaum I. Transplant outcomes and dialysis modality. Contrib Nephrol. 2012; 178: 251-257.
99. Prasad N, Vardhan H, Baburaj VP, Bhadauria D, Gupta A, Sharma RK, et al. Do the outcomes of living donor renal allograft recipients differ with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis as a bridge renal replacement therapy? Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2014; 25: 1202-1209.
100. Bleyer AJ, Burkart JM, Russell GB, Adams PL. Dialysis modality and delayed graft function after cadaveric renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999; 10: 154-159.
101. Van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Van Loo A, Van Der Vennet M, Lameire N. Peritoneal dialysis favorably influences early graft function after renal transplantation compared to hemodialysis. Transplantation. 2000; 69: 508-514.
102. Vanholder R, Heering P, Loo AV, Biesen WV, Lambert MC, Hesse U, et al. Reduced incidence of acute renal graft failure in patients treated with peritoneal dialysis compared with hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999; 33: 934-940.
103. Binaut R, Hazzan M, Pruvot FR, Dracon M, Lelievre G, Noel C. Comparative study of chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis patients after kidney transplantation: clinical and financial assessment. Transplant Proc. 1997; 29: 24-28.
104. Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS, Hurdle JF, Scandling JD, Baird BC, Cheung AK. The role of pretransplantation renal replacement therapy modality in kidney allograft and recipient survival. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005; 46: 537-549.
105. Barendse SM, Speight J, Bradley C. The Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (RTSQ): a measure of satisfaction with treatment for chronic kidney failure. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005; 45: 572-579.
106. Liem YS, Wong JB, Hunink MG, de Charro FT, Winkelmayer WC. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis survival in The Netherlands. Kidney Int. 2007; 71: 153-158.
107. Juergensen E, Wuerth D, Finkelstein SH, Juergensen PH, Bekui A, Finkelstein FO. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: patients’ assessment of their satisfaction with therapy and the impact of the therapy on their lives. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006; 1: 1191-1196.