• Gowrie Balasubramanian, Khadija McKitty, and Stanley L-S Fan.
• Department of Renal Medicine and Transplantation, The Royal London and St Bartholomew’s Hospitals, London, UK. s.fan@qmul.ac.uk
• Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2011 May 1; 26 (5): 1702-8.

BackgroundThere is a wide disparity in the use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in the UK. This may be due to a perceived quality of life and technique survival advantage with APD, although evidence is lacking.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre retrospective study of incident end-stage renal disease initiating APD and CAPD with data collected prospectively over 5 years. PD modality was based on patient preference. Health status was assessed using SF-36 questionnaires at initial and 1-year follow-up appointments.ResultsThree hundred and seventy-two patients were included: 194 patients chose APD, and 178 patients chose CAPD. CAPD patients were generally older and more dependent than APD patients. Univariate analysis for technique survival was inferior for CAPD (relative risk for failure 1.46, 95% CI 1.08-1.97). But on multivariate analysis when comorbidity was added into the model, PD modality was no longer a significant predictor of technique survival. There was no difference in decline in residual renal function. Baseline CAPD patients had worse health status (HS); mean (SEM) physical and social composite scores were 32.3 (0.9) vs 36.5 (0.9) and 33.3 (1.2) vs 40.3 (1.2). After 1 year, HS scores for CAPD and APD patients were similar, but the improvement in HS scores correlated with baseline scores (PD modality was not an independent predictor of the change in HS).ConclusionsThis study did not show any advantages of APD over CAPD in terms of technique survival or HS. There is no evidence to support physician bias towards one PD modality, and both should be available to allow patient choice.

18 keywords...

hide…