Automated peritoneal dialysis in urgent‐start dialysis ESRD patients: Safety and dialysis adequacy

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) might be a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients who had started APD as an urgent-start dialysis modality at a single center. Dialysis-related complications were recorded. Dialysis adequacy and electrolytes imbalance were compared between baseline, 14 and 42 days after catheter insertion. Technique survival and patient survival were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were included in the study. Mean follow-up duration was 22 months. During the follow-up, 11 PD patients (30.6%) developed dialysis-related complications. Only two patients (5.6%) required re-insertion and one patients (2.8%) transfer to HD. The 2-year technique survival rate and patient survival rate were 94.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In considering safety and dialysis adequacy, APD could be a feasible dialysis modality for urgent-start dialysis in ESRD patients, using a standard procedure.