Tidal versus other forms of peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury: Cochrane systematic review

Abstract

Assessed as up to date: 2012/02/08

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Recent studies have shown that dialysis dose was a major factor associated with patient survival. Unresolved questions persist about which mode of peritoneal dialysis (PD) should be used for most patients with AKI.

Objectives

To assess the benefits and harms of tidal PD (TPD) versus other forms of PD on outcomes for patients with AKI.

Search methods

In February 2012 we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (from 1966) and EMBASE (from 1980). We also searched reference lists of included studies, review articles and nephrology text books, and contacted local and international experts.

Selection criteria

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) of TPD versus other forms of PD for AKI.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently reviewed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes using a random-effects model.

Main results

We included one randomised cross-over study, enrolling 87 participants, which compared TPD with continuous equilibrating PD (CEPD) for patients with AKI. Sequence generation was adequate while allocation concealment was not reported. Our primary outcomes of mortality and recovery of renal function (complete or partial) were not reported (high risk of selective reporting bias). The results from this one study showed TPD resulted in higher creatinine clearance (CrCl) (MD 1.88 mL/min, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.85) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) clearance (MD 14.71 mL/min, 95% CI 8.24 to 21.18) than CEPD; was superior to CEPD in the removal of potassium, phosphates and in generating ultrafiltrate; was better tolerated; consumed less time and was less expensive than CEPD. There was greater protein loss with TPD. No adverse events were reported.

Authors' conclusions

At present, there is insufficient RCT evidence to enable evaluation of the effect of TPD in patients with AKI. Well-designed and larger RCTs are required to better understand the risks and benefits of TPD for AKI.

Author(s)

Jiang Lei, Zeng Rong, Yang KeHu, Mi Deng Hai, Tian Jin Hui, Ma Bin, Liu Yali

Summary

Tidal versus other forms of peritoneal dialysis for patients with acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is characterised by a sudden decline in kidney filtration and patients with AKI have reduced (or no) urine output. AKI is clinically defined by an increase in serum creatinine and decrease in glomerular filtration rate. People with AKI need renal replacement therapy usually in the form of kidney dialysis. At present, there is no universally accepted form of dialysis for most AKI patients. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been favoured because it causes fewer heart and lung problems, and patients do not need anti-clotting drugs. Tidal PD (TPD) is an automated process that fills and drains the dialysis fluid, but retains a designated proportion so the peritoneum never completely empties.

We looked for evidence from randomised controlled trials that investigated TPD versus other forms of dialysis for people with AKI. Only one study of enrolling 87 participants was found that compared TPD with continuous equilibrating PD (CEPD). This study showed that TPD produced higher solute clearances in less time with greater protein loss than CEPD, but did not report how well patients recovered kidney function, nor if any people died.

There was insufficient evidence to determine if TPD is better or worse than other types of PD for patients with AKI.

Reviewer's Conclusions

Implications for practice

The one RCT identified by this review evaluated TPD for the treatment of patients with AKI and was not designed to enable assessment of clinical outcome measures of efficacy. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether TPD was superior to any other mode of PD for the treatment of patients with AKI.

Implications for research

There is a need for more well-designed RCTs that compare the effects of TPD and other modes of dialysis for patients with AK). Cost-effectiveness analyses that account for patients' preferences are also required to enable clinicians to individualise optimal treatment. Pragmatic clinical outcome measures, such as mortality, recovery of renal function, and survival should be considered by future triallists. Adherence to study quality issues such as concealment of treatment allocation, blinding and long-term follow-up are required to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits of interventions in focus. Comprehensive reporting of trial methodology and outcomes that conform to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement should be undertaken by future triallists.

Get full text at The Cochrane Library

Tidal versus other forms of peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury: Cochrane systematic review is a sample topic from the Cochrane Abstracts.

To view other topics, please or purchase a subscription.

Evidence Central is an integrated web and mobile solution that helps clinicians quickly answer etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis questions using the latest evidence-based research. Complete Product Information.