-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) May 2021cardiovascular complications (CVC) are the leading cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Standard cardiovascular disease risk prediction models... (Review)
Review
cardiovascular complications (CVC) are the leading cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Standard cardiovascular disease risk prediction models used in the general population are not validated in patients with CKD. We aim to systematically review the up-to-date literature on reported outcomes of computational methods such as artificial intelligence (AI) or regression-based models to predict CVC in CKD patients. the electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were systematically searched. The risk of bias and reporting quality for each study were assessed against transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). sixteen papers were included in the present systematic review: 15 non-randomized studies and 1 ongoing clinical trial. Twelve studies were found to perform AI or regression-based predictions of CVC in CKD, either through single or composite endpoints. Four studies have come up with computational solutions for other CV-related predictions in the CKD population. the identified studies represent palpable trends in areas of clinical promise with an encouraging present-day performance. However, there is a clear need for more extensive application of rigorous methodologies. Following the future prospective, randomized clinical trials, and thorough external validations, computational solutions will fill the gap in cardiovascular predictive tools for chronic kidney disease.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Bias; Computer Simulation; Humans; Prognosis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 34072159
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57060538 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death in dialysis patients, and strongly associated with fluid overload and hypertension. It is plausible that low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death in dialysis patients, and strongly associated with fluid overload and hypertension. It is plausible that low dialysate [Na+] may decrease total body sodium content, thereby reducing fluid overload and hypertension, and ultimately reducing CV morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVES
This review evaluated harms and benefits of using a low (< 138 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 August 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both parallel and cross-over, of low (< 138 mM) versus neutral (138 to 140 mM) or high (> 140 mM) dialysate [Na+] for maintenance HD patients were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two investigators independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models, and results expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies randomising 310 patients, with data available for 266 patients after dropout. All but one study evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], and one profiled dialysate [Na+]. Three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine cross-over. Of the latter, only two used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3 (3, 8.5) weeks. Two were of a single HD session, and two of a single week's HD. Half of the studies were conducted prior to 2000, and five reported use of obsolete HD practices. Risks of bias in the included studies were often high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results.Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "efficacy" endpoints: reduced interdialytic weight gain (10 studies: MD -0.35 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.51; high certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis mean arterial blood pressure (BP) (4 studies: MD -3.58 mmHg, 95% CI -5.46 to -1.69; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced postdialysis mean arterial BP (MAP) (4 studies: MD -3.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.70 to -4.82; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis serum [Na+] (7 studies: MD -1.69 mM, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.02; moderate certainty evidence); may have reduced antihypertensive medication (2 studies: SMD -0.67 SD, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.28; low certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "safety" endpoints: probably increased intradialytic hypotension events (9 studies: RR 1.56, 95% 1.17 to 2.07; moderate certainty evidence); probably increased intradialytic cramps (6 studies: RR 1.77, 95% 1.15 to 2.73; moderate certainty evidence).Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] may make little or no difference to: intradialytic BP (2 studies: MD for systolic BP -3.99 mmHg, 95% CI -17.96 to 9.99; diastolic BP 1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -6.29 to 8.95; low certainty evidence); interdialytic BP (2 studies:, MD for systolic BP 0.17 mmHg, 95% CI -5.42 to 5.08; diastolic BP -2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to 0.84; low certainty evidence); dietary salt intake (2 studies: MD -0.21g/d, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.06; low certainty evidence).Due to very low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular mass or volumes, thirst or fatigue. Studies did not examine cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalisation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is likely that low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and BP, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably also increases intradialytic hypotension and reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with increased mortality risk. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Hypertension; Hypotension; Muscle Cramp; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Sodium; Weight Gain
PubMed: 30646428
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011204.pub2 -
Critical Care (London, England) Feb 2018Hemodynamic instability related to renal replacement therapy (HIRRT) may increase the risk of death and limit renal recovery. Studies in end-stage renal disease... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hemodynamic instability related to renal replacement therapy (HIRRT) may increase the risk of death and limit renal recovery. Studies in end-stage renal disease populations on maintenance hemodialysis suggest that some renal replacement therapy (RRT)-related interventions (e.g., cool dialysate) may reduce the occurrence of HIRRT, but less is known about interventions to prevent HIRRT in critically ill patients receiving RRT for acute kidney injury (AKI). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of RRT-related interventions for reducing HIRRT in such patients across RRT modalities.
METHODS
A systematic review of publications was undertaken using MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, and Cochrane's Central Registry for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Studies that assessed any intervention's effect on HIRRT (the primary outcome) in critically ill patients with AKI were included. HIRRT was variably defined according to each study's definition. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, identified articles for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated study quality using validated assessment tools.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and four observational studies were included (n = 9; 623 patients in total). Studies were small, and the quality was mostly low. Interventions included dialysate sodium modeling (n = 3), ultrafiltration profiling (n = 2), blood volume (n = 2) and temperature control (n = 3), duration of RRT (n = 1), and slow blood flow rate at initiation (n = 1). Some studies applied more than one strategy simultaneously (n = 5). Interventions shown to reduce HIRRT from three studies (two RCTs and one observational study) included higher dialysate sodium concentration, lower dialysate temperature, variable ultrafiltration rates, or a combination of strategies. Interventions not found to have an effect included blood volume and temperature control, extended duration of intermittent RRT, and slower blood flow rates during continuous RRT initiation. How HIRRT was defined and its frequency of occurrence varied widely across studies, including those involving the same RRT modality. Pooled analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Small clinical studies suggest that higher dialysate sodium, lower temperature, individualized ultrafiltration rates, or a combination of these strategies may reduce the risk of HIRRT. Overall, for all RRT modalities, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding interventions to reduce the occurrence of HIRRT in critically ill patients.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Critical Illness; Dialysis Solutions; Hemodynamics; Humans; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 29467008
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-1965-5 -
International Urology and Nephrology Jul 2024The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effect of low dialysate sodium concentration on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) in chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effect of low dialysate sodium concentration on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) in chronic hemodialysis patients.
METHODS
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were English language papers published in a peer-reviewed journal and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies in adult patients (over 18 years of age), (2) included patients on chronic hemodialysis since at least 6 months; (3) compared standard (138-140 mmol/l) or high (> 140 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration with low (< 138 mmol/l) dialysate sodium concentration; (4) Included one outcome of interest: interdialytic weight gain. Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the quality of reporting for each study was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool of Controlled Intervention Studies of the National Institutes of Health. The quality of reporting of each cross-over study was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for cross-over trials as proposed by Ding et al. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (710 patients) were included in the analysis: 15 were cross-over and 4 parallel randomized controlled studies. In cross-over studies, pooled analysis revealed that dialysate sodium concentration reduced IDWG with a pooled MD of - 0.40 kg (95% CI - 0.50 to - 0.30; p < 0.001). The systematic review of four parallel, randomized, studies revealed that the use of a low dialysate sodium concentration was associated with a significant reduction of the IDWG in two studies, sustained and almost significant (p = 0.05) reduction in one study, and not significant reduction in one study.
CONCLUSION
Low dialysate sodium concentration reduces the IDWG in prevalent patients on chronic hemodialysis.
Topics: Humans; Renal Dialysis; Sodium; Weight Gain; Dialysis Solutions; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Hemodialysis Solutions
PubMed: 38446246
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-024-03972-3 -
Journal of Agricultural and Food... Apr 2023Since the early 1980s, multiple researchers have contributed to the development of models of the human gastrointestinal system for the mechanistic interrogation of the... (Review)
Review
Since the early 1980s, multiple researchers have contributed to the development of models of the human gastrointestinal system for the mechanistic interrogation of the gut microbiome ecology. Using a bioreactor for simulating all the features and conditions of the gastrointestinal system is a massive challenge. Some conditions, such as temperature and pH, are readily controlled, but a more challenging feature to simulate is that both may vary in different regions of the gastrointestinal tract. Promising solutions have been developed for simulating other functionalities, such as dialysis capabilities, peristaltic movements, and biofilm growth. This research field is under constant development, and further efforts are needed to drive these models closer to conditions, thereby increasing their usefulness for studying the gut microbiome impact on human health. Therefore, understanding the influence of key operational parameters is fundamental for the refinement of the current bioreactors and for guiding the development of more complex models. In this review, we performed a systematic search for operational parameters in 229 papers that used continuous bioreactors seeded with human feces. Despite the reporting of operational parameters for the various bioreactor models being variable, as a result of a lack of standardization, the impact of specific operational parameters on gut microbial ecology is discussed, highlighting the advantages and limitations of the current bioreactor systems.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Feces; Gastrointestinal Tract; Bioreactors
PubMed: 37070710
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c08146 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Catheter malfunction, including thrombosis, is associated with reduced dialysis adequacy, as well as an increased risk of catheter-related bacteraemia and mortality. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Catheter malfunction, including thrombosis, is associated with reduced dialysis adequacy, as well as an increased risk of catheter-related bacteraemia and mortality. The role of anticoagulants in the prevention of catheter malfunction remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to compare the prophylactic effect of different anticoagulant agents, preparations, doses and administration on the incidence of central venous haemodialysis catheter-related malfunction and sepsis in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 7 January 2016 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCT) assessing anticoagulants compared with conventional care for the prevention of catheter malfunction in adult patients receiving haemodialysis for ESKD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was catheter malfunction defined as a catheter blood flow of 200 mL/min or less, or as defined by study authors. Secondary outcomes were catheter-related bacteraemia, all-cause mortality and bleeding events. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for individual studies were pooled using random effects models within treatment classes. Analyses were conducted by class, with subgroup analyses performed of individual agents within classes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies (3003 participants) that were followed up for a median of six months. Study interventions included alternative anticoagulant locking solutions (19 studies, 2216 patients), systemic agents (6 studies, 664 patients) and low or no dose heparin (2 studies, 123 patients). The most common comparison treatment was a locking solution of heparin 5000 IU/mL, used in 17 studies. No significant effect on catheter malfunction was observed for alternative anticoagulant locking solutions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.26), systemic agents (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.23), or low or no dose heparin (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.31). A significant reduction on incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia was observed for alternative anticoagulant locking solutions (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.66) but not systemic agents (RR 2.41, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.55), and could not be assessed in reports of low or no dose heparin studies. No significant effect on all-cause mortality was observed for alternative anticoagulant locking solutions (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.43) or systemic agents (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.65), and was not reported in studies of low or no dose heparin. Bleeding events were only reported in eight studies, including only 2/5 studies of systemic warfarin, with no clear effect demonstrated (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.39). For individual agents, recombinant tissue plasminogen (rt-PA) was the only locking solution shown to reduce catheter malfunction (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91) based on the results of a single study. No significant on catheter malfunction was observed for other individual classes of alternative anticoagulant locking solutions (citrate: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; antibiotic: RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77; ethanol: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.67). On the other hand, all individual classes of alternative anticoagulant locking solutions, except ethanol, reduced catheter-related bacteraemia (citrate: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68; antibiotic: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; rt-PA: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.93; ethanol: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.05). No significant effect on all-cause mortality was observed for any individual agent within the class of alternative locking solutions. Studies were mainly of low quality and underpowered with an average participant number of 75 and study duration of six months. The interpretation of the study evidence was further limited by the variation in tested interventions and outcome reporting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The relative net benefit of anticoagulant therapies for prevention of catheter malfunction remains uncertain. Multiple agents appear to reduce catheter-related bacteraemia although the lack of clear assessment of harms and the limitations of study quality mean these results should be interpreted with caution. Methodological approaches can be used to avoid methods of reporting unduly affecting on the results of meta-analyses incorporating studies employed mixed reporting methods. Further high quality randomised studies, including safety outcomes, are needed.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Bacteremia; Catheter Obstruction; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Heparin; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 27039404
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009631.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Birth Rate; Dialysis Solutions; Female; Gels; Glucocorticoids; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Icodextrin; Infertility, Female; Pelvic Pain; Plasma Substitutes; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Second-Look Surgery; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 32683695
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis initiation for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring urgent dialysis without established permanent dialysis access. Recently, several small studies have reported comparable patient outcomes between urgent-start and conventional-start PD.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD (within 2 weeks of catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD ( ≥ 2 weeks of catheter insertion) treatment in children and adults CKD patients requiring long-term dialysis were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted and quality of studies were examined by two independent authors. The authors contacted investigators for additional information. Summary estimates of effect were examined using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate for the data. The certainty of evidence for individual outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (2953 participants) were included in this review, which included one multicentre RCT (122 participants) and 15 non-RCTs (2831 participants): 13 cohort studies (2671 participants) and 2 case-control studies (160 participants). The review included unadjusted data for analyses due to paucity of studies reporting adjusted data. In low certainty evidence, urgent-start PD may increase dialysate leak (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.78) compared with conventional-start PD which translated into an absolute number of 210 more leaks per 1000 (95% CI 40 to 635). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases catheter blockage (4 cohort studies, 1214 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.43; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.13), catheter malposition (6 cohort studies, 1353 participants: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.32; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 13.96), and PD dialysate flow problems (3 cohort studies, 937 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.14) compared to conventional-start PD. In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases exit-site infection (2 cohort studies, 337 participants: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.61; 1 case-control study, 104 participants RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50), exit-site bleeding (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.03 to 16.81; 1 cohort study, 27 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.32), peritonitis (7 cohort studies, 1497 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46; 2 case-control studies, participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.51), catheter readjustment (2 cohort studies, 739 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.02), or reduces technique survival (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20; 8 cohort studies, 1668 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06). In very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD increased death (any cause) (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53; 7 cohort studies, 1509 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.3; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.02; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on tunnel tract infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with CKD who require dialysis urgently without ready-to-use dialysis access in place, urgent-start PD may increase the risk of dialysate leak and has uncertain effects on catheter blockage, malposition or readjustment, PD dialysate flow problems, infectious complications, exit-site bleeding, technique survival, and patient survival compared with conventional-start PD.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Catheter Obstruction; Catheter-Related Infections; Cohort Studies; Dialysis Solutions; Emergency Treatment; Hemorrhage; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33320346
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012913.pub2 -
International Journal of Clinical and... 2015Locking of central venous catheters with heparin is an accepted practice to maintain catheter patency between dialysis sessions. However, this practice may cause other...
Anticoagulant therapies versus heparin for the prevention of hemodialysis catheter-related complications: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.
Locking of central venous catheters with heparin is an accepted practice to maintain catheter patency between dialysis sessions. However, this practice may cause other adverse reactions. Although many studies suggest benefits of other catheter lock solutions over heparin on these grounds, no consensus has been reached for clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared antimicrobial-containing or citrate-alone catheter lock solutions with heparin alone in patients undergoing hemodialysis with central venous catheters. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for articles published through June 2014. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) and catheter malfunction (CM). The secondary outcomes were bleeding, exit-site infection (ESI), clinical sepsis, and all-cause mortality. Seventeen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that antimicrobial-containing and citrate-alone lock solutions were superior to heparin for preventing CRB (both P < 0.01). Although antimicrobial-containing lock solutions significantly affected clinical sepsis (P < 0.01), they did not affect ESI, bleeding, or all-cause mortality. Incidence of CM episodes was lower in patients receiving antibiotics + heparin and gentamicin + citrate (both P < 0.05), while other antimicrobial-containing and citrate-alone lock solutions showed no difference. Only citrate-alone lock solutions significantly decreased bleeding and ESI episodes (both P < 0.05). Compared with heparin, antimicrobial-containing lock solutions more effectively prevent CRB and clinical sepsis. Antibiotics + heparin and gentamicin + citrate solutions showing better prevention of CM. Citrate-alone lock solutions result in fewer CRB, bleeding and ESI episodes.
PubMed: 26550111
DOI: No ID Found -
Avicenna Journal of Medicine Oct 2011Hemodialysis catheters are commonly used when renal replacement therapy is initiated. These catheters have significant complications. Among "locking" solutions used in...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Hemodialysis catheters are commonly used when renal replacement therapy is initiated. These catheters have significant complications. Among "locking" solutions used in an attempt to decrease these complications is recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA). This systematic review is to determine the efficacy of rt-PA versus heparin, the standard of care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials studying rt-PA alone or rt-PA plus heparin versus heparin alone as locking agents for hemodialysis catheters, which included patients needed a temporary hemodialysis catheter for hemodialysis. We identified relevant trials through electronic databases and correspondence with experts. Two investigators independently reviewed potentially eligible trials and extracted data.
RESULTS
Three trials met the inclusion criteria. One trial reported an improved catheter malfunctioning in patients using rt-PA plus heparin to lock catheters (20.0%) versus heparin alone (34.8%). Another trial reported higher blood flow rate in hemodialysis catheters in patients who received rt-PA (231.6 ± 12.4 mL/min) compared with those who received heparin (206.9 mL/min). The third trial reported formation and weight of clots which were decreased by half in rt-PA group versus heparin group.
CONCLUSIONS
In the few randomized trials that met our inclusion criteria, the use of rt-PA as a locking solution for hemodialysis catheters seems to be associated with fewer adverse events and catheter malfunctioning as compared with heparin. Our systematic review is limited by the few randomized trials addressing our question and the wide variety of outcome measures. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.
PubMed: 23210006
DOI: 10.4103/2231-0770.90913