PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Perit Dial Int 27(Supplement_2): 42-47
2007
© 2007 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lo, W.-K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lo, W.-K.

Part 1: PD Development and Enhancement of PD Programs

PERITONEAL DIALYSIS UTILIZATION AND OUTCOME: WHAT ARE WE FACING?

Wai-Kei Lo

Department of Medicine, Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, PR China

Correspondence to: W.K. Lo, Department of Medicine, Tung Wah Hospital, 12 Po Yan Street, Hong Kong SAR, PR China. wkloc{at}hkucc.hku.hk


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 

Penetration of peritoneal dialysis (PD) varies tremendously across the world. It ranges from about 80% in Hong Kong and Mexico to just a few percentage points in the United States, Japan, and Germany. While PD is growing in China, India, and some Eastern European and South American countries, it is declining in many European and North American countries. In terms of outcomes, the survival of PD patients is generally comparable to that of hemodialysis (HD) patients and better than that of HD patients during the first few years on dialysis. According to the U.S. Renal Data System, survival of patients on PD has been improving faster than that of patients on HD. In terms of cost, PD is usually cheaper than HD. Hence, declining PD utilization is unjustified. Work is required to identify and overcome negative factors such as physician bias, unfair medical reimbursement systems, and poor patient education.

KEY WORDS: Hemodialysis; utilization rate; patient survival; cost.

Penetration of peritoneal dialysis (PD) among prevalent dialysis patients varies tremendously across the world. Figure 1 shows the PD utilization rate in the year 2003. Hong Kong and Mexico had the highest utilization rate at about 80%, followed by New Zealand at about 45%. The utilization rate in many Western European developed countries (such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden), Asia (Korea and Singapore), Australia, and Canada were in the range of 20% – 30%. In the most affluent countries (such as the United States, Germany, Japan) and also in many less developed countries, PD utilization was very low (less than 10%). The lowest utilization rate was found in the least developed countries (such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many African countries) where the dialysis population is also extremely small. However, although the utilization rate was still low, a rising trend was found in many Asian and Eastern European countries (Figure 2). The fastest growth rate was found in China and India, with about 20% growth annually for the past few years (1,2). The exact utilization rates in China and India are not known, because both lack a national registry. The rising trend in these countries probably reflects the rising interest in PD among nephrologists, who are recognizing the suitability of PD for their patients and PD as a more economical treatment modality than hemodialysis (HD).


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1 — The percentage penetration for peritoneal dialysis among prevalent dialysis patients in the year 2003. Data are derived from the U.S. Renal Data System report, the European Dialysis and Transplant Association report, the U.K. Renal Registry report, and the Hong Kong Renal Registry report.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2 — Countries with a rising trend of percentage peritoneal dialysis (PD%) penetration among prevalent patients.

 


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
DECLINING PD UTILIZATION TREND
In contrast with the rising trend in Asia, PD utilization is seen to be declining in North America, many Western European countries, and Australia and New Zealand (Figure 3). The reasons for this decline have not been well studied and may vary between countries.


Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3 — Countries with a declining trend of percentage peritoneal dialysis penetration among prevalent patients.

 
In the United States, PD utilization rose from the 1980s until the mid-1990s. From the mid-1990s, PD penetration progressively declined to 8% from 15%, coinciding with the publication in 1997 of the U.S. National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (DOQI) guideline on adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Many believe that the DOQI guideline contributed to the decline in PD utilization because the minimal weekly Kt/V target of 2.0 cannot be reached easily in many patients. As a result, patients were shifted away from PD to HD. It should be noted that the minimal weekly Kt/V target has been re-adjusted to 1.7 in all 2005 and 2006 published guidelines [European Best Practice Guidelines, NKF Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI), and the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD)] (3–5).

PD OUTCOME: PATIENT SURVIVAL
Another negative factor affecting PD utilization may be the data from reported survival studies.

Debates are ongoing about the survival comparison between PD and HD. Theoretically, large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should provide the best answer, but unfortunately, no such RCTs are available. The report from Korevaar et al., in which only 38 of 773 patients were willing to be randomized, indicated that launching another RCT of sufficiently powered sample size will be quite impossible in the near future (6). Reliance on survival reports or registry analysis studies will be the norm, but the conclusions from those types of reports often vary and may even contradict one another.

Table 1 shows a summary of survival comparison conclusions from various reports (7–18). The variations are probably related to differences in patient type, case mix, modality selection criteria, and even the practice of PD.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1 Summary of Survival Reports Comparing Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Patients with Hemodialysis Patientsa

 

In 1997, using the Canadian Renal Registry, Fenton et al. reported better survival for PD patients in the first 4 years of dialysis (10). This finding of better survival of PD patients in the first few years has subsequently been confirmed by many other reports, although the period of initial survival advantage varies (12,14,15). The foregoing data formed the basis for the "PD first" policy. But such findings did not positively affect the PD utilization rate in the Western world. The fact that the PD survival rate becomes similar to the HD rate after a few years means that risk of death for PD-to-HD patients increases with time. And so, despite overall survival for PD patients during the first 5 years still not being inferior to HD [as indicated by the latest U.S. Renal Data System (USRDS) report], the increase in mortality risk for PD over time as compared with the risk for HD has been emphasized in many survival reports and has become a negative factor weighing against the choice of PD for many doctors.

This selective attitude in translating survival data into practice is also reflected in subgroup survival analysis and utilization. Although some reports show that PD may be a worse choice in older and diabetic patients (19), there is little argument about the better survival of young and nondiabetic PD patients—and yet PD utilization continues to decline in young and nondiabetic patients in the United States (20).

IMPROVEMENT IN PD PATIENT OUTCOME
The USRDS report for 2005 compared 5-year survival data for two cohorts of patients who started dialysis during 1989 – 1993 and during 1994 – 1998 (21). An overall improvement in 5-year patient survival was observed for the cohort of patients started dialysis during 1994 – 1998 as compared with the 1989 – 1993 group, with the greatest improvement being seen in the PD patients (PD 14%, HD 9%, transplant 9%). In the same report, the 5-year survival for nondiabetic PD patients in the 1994 – 1998 cohort exceeded the survival for a parallel group of HD patients. Moreover, among diabetic patients, although survival on PD still fell below survival in the HD counterpart group, the difference was much smaller than in the comparable 1989 – 1993 cohorts. The younger age group (20 – 44) of PD patients clearly had a lower cumulative probability of death at 5 years, and in the other age subgroups (45 – 64, 65 – 74, 75+), the probability was very similar to that for the HD patients.

The exact cause of the survival improvement was not discussed in the USRDS report, but may be related to the attention paid to adequacy of dialysis after the mid-1990s. If the trend of improvement in the survival of PD patients over HD patients dialyzed after 1998 persists, even better survival for PD patients over HD patients may be expected to appear. With the availability of icodextrin peritoneal dialysate in the United States since 2002, further improvement in outcome is anticipated. A few more years' wait for more update data on patient survival in the 2000s will tell the tale.

BETTER SURVIVAL IN ASIAN PD PATIENTS
It has to be pointed out that the USRDS survival data cannot be generalized to other parts of the world. Asian patients—whether on PD or HD, and whether living in Asia or in North America—are well recognized to experience better survival than Caucasians do (22–24). The 2-year patient survival of PD patients in Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong was between 80% and 90%. It was about 70% – 80% in many European countries and even lower in North America (Figure 4). However, few published analyses have compared the survival of PD and HD patients from Asian countries.


Figure 4
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4 — Unadjusted patient survival rate of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in various parts of the world. Data are derived from the U.S. Renal Data System (USRDS) report, the European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EDTA) report, and the Hong Kong Renal Registry report. No national registry data from Japan are available. The Japanese data presented here were extracted from a multicenter study on eight dialysis centers (27). In Korea, PD registry data are available only for patients who started dialysis from 2001 onwards, and the data for Korea come from reference 26. The one Swedish center result was also retrieved from reference 26. non-DM = patients without diabetes mellitus.

 
A recent publication from a single center in Taiwan showed superior survival for PD patients over HD patients, with or without diabetes (25). These data suggest that Asian PD patients can have better survival than HD patients do. On the other hand, Caucasian patients on PD may do as well as Asian patients, as reported in a direct comparison of patient survival from a Korean and a Swedish PD center (26).

The real questions are "Why?" and "How?" What are the factors that produce better survival in Asian patients, and can those differences be overcome? More studies need to be conducted to shed light on this issue.

PD COSTS LESS THAN HD
As has been seen, survival data do not provide strong support for the decline in the PD utilization rate. Could the decline be attributable to non-medical factors?

In terms of patient choice, studies have shown that, if given an adequate explanation of the pros and cons of PD and HD well before dialysis, close to 50% of patients would choose PD and that patients who receive counseling are more likely to choose PD (28). Unfortunately, patients may not be given an optimal education in dialysis modality selection, or the option of PD may not be available to them in many dialysis programs.

In terms of cost, PD is generally cheaper than HD in most developed, and even in many less developed, countries (Table 2). In the United States, the annual cost per patient for PD is only about 70% of the cost for satellite HD, but this cost benefit does not translate into utilization choice. Therapy with PD is cheaper, because it is home-based, with many fewer clinic attendances; but, unfortunately, PD then usually generates less income for the clinics, hospitals, and doctors because of its less frequent clinic visits and treatments on which payment or reimbursement is often based. These factors reduce the financial incentive for nephrologists and center administrators to put patients on PD, which is believed to be a major reason for the low PD utilization rate in many countries.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2 Cost Comparison (US$ per Patient–Year) Between Hemodialysis (HD) and Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) in Various Countriesa

 


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
The decline in PD utilization is unjustified from both a medical and a non-medical point of view. It must therefore be related to many identified or unidentified factors, particularly non-medical factors. Full investigation into these factors is warranted. To improve PD utilization, survival analyses need to be further updated, reimbursement and payment systems must change to favor home dialysis therapy, dialysis facilities need the appropriate set-ups and expertise for PD, the structure and content of predialysis patient education must change, and of course PD therapy and care must continue to be improved.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Abraham G. An update on PD in the India Subcontinent. ISPD Asian Chapter Newsletter 2004;2 (March): 1. [Available online at: www.ispd.org/asian_newsletter/ISPD-ACN-02%20Issue.pdf; cited 24 February 2007]
  2. Wang T. Peritoneal dialysis in China. ISPD Asian Chapter Newsletter 2004;2 (September): 1. [Available online at: www.ispd.org/asian_newsletter/ISPD-ACN-03%20Issue.pdf; cited 24 February 2007]
  3. Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimbürger O, Krediet R, et al., for the EBPG Expert Group on Peritoneal Dialysis. European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. 7. Adequacy of peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20 (Suppl 9):ix24 -7.[Free Full Text]
  4. Peritoneal Dialysis Adequacy Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis adequacy. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 48(Suppl 1):S98 -129.[Medline]
  5. Lo WK, Bargman JM, Burkart J, Krediet RT, Pollock C, Kawanishi H, et al., for the ISPD Adequacy of Peritoneal Dialysis Working Group. Guideline on targets for solute and fluid removal in adult patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2006;26 : 520-2.[Free Full Text]
  6. Korevaar JC, Feith GW, Dekker FW, van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Bossuyt PM, et al., for the NECOSAD Study Group. Effect of starting with hemodialysis compared with peritoneal dialysis in patients new on dialysis treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int 2003; 64:2222 -8.[Medline]
  7. Lupo A, Cancarini G, Catizone L, Cocchi R, de Vecchi A, Viglino G, et al. Comparison of survival in CAPD and hemodialysis: a multicenter study. Adv Perit Dial 1992;8 : 136-40.[Medline]
  8. Held PJ, Port FK, Turenne MN, Gaylin DS, Hamburger RJ, Wolfe RA. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: comparison of patient mortality with adjustment for comorbid conditions. Kidney Int 1994; 45:1163 -9.[Medline]
  9. Bloembergen WE, Port FK, Mauger EA, Wolfe RA. A comparison of mortality between patients treated with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1995;6 : 177-83.[Abstract]
  10. 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 Dis1997; 30:334 -42.[Medline]
  11. Vonesh EF, Moran J. Mortality in end-stage renal disease: a reassessment of differences between patients treated with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol1999; 10:354 -65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Collins AJ, Hao W, Xia H, Ebben JP, Everson SE, Constantini EG, et al. Mortality risks of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1999;34 : 1065-74.[Medline]
  13. Tanna MM, Vonesh EF, Korbet SM. Patient survival among incident peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients in an urban setting. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;36 : 1175-82.[Medline]
  14. Heaf JG, Lokkegaard H, Madsen M. Initial survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17:112 -17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Termorshuizen F, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, Van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT for The Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis Study Group. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: comparison of adjusted mortality rates according to the duration of dialysis: analysis of The Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis 2. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14:2851 -60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. 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 : 2398-408.[Medline]
  17. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, Collins AJ. The differential impact of risk factors on mortality in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int 2004;66 : 2389-401.[Medline]
  18. Jaar BG, Coresh J, Plantinga LC, Fink NE, Klag MJ, Levey AS, et al. Comparing the risk for death with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in a national cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med 2005;143 : 174-83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Winkelmayer WC, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, Levin R, Pliskin JS, Avorn J. Comparing mortality of elderly patients on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a propensity score approach. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13:2353 -62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Mehrotra R, Kermah D, Fried L, Kalantar–Zadeh K, Norris K, Nissenson A. Declining utilization and improving outcomes of chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD) in U.S. [Abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17:101A .
  21. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. USRDS 2005 annual data report. Bethesda: United States Renal Data System;2005 : 124.
  22. Lo WK, Jiang Y, Cheng SW, Cheng IK. Survival of CAPD patients in a center using three two-liter exchanges as standard regime. Perit Dial Int 1996; 16(Suppl 1):S163 -6.[Abstract]
  23. Wong JS, Port FK, Hulbert–Shearon TE, Carroll CE, Wolfe RA, Agodoa LY, et al. Survival advantage in Asian American end-stage renal disease patients. Kidney Int 1999;55 : 2515-23.[Medline]
  24. Wang T, Tziviskou E, Chu M, Bargman J, Jassal V, Vas S, et al. Differences in survival on peritoneal dialysis between oriental Asians and Caucasians: one center's experience. Int Urol Nephrol 2003; 35:267 -74.[Medline]
  25. Lin TC, Kao MT, Lai MN, Huang CC. Mortality difference by dialysis modality among new ESRD patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Dial Transplant 2006;4 : 234-66.
  26. Chung SH, Heimbürger O, Lindholm B, Lee HB. Peritoneal dialysis patient survival: a comparison between a Swedish and a Korean centre. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20 : 1207-13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Nakamoto H, Kawaguchi Y, Suzuki H. Is technique survival on peritoneal dialysis better in Japan? Perit Dial Int2006; 26:136 -43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Little J, Irwin A, Marshall T, Rayner H, Smith S. Predicting a patient's choice of dialysis modality: experience in a United Kingdom renal department. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37 : 981-6.[Medline]
  29. Sennfalt K, Magnusson M, Carlsson P. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis—a cost–utility analysis. Perit Dial Int 2002;22:39 -47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Lee H, Manns B, Taub K, Ghali WA, Dean S, Johnson D, et al. Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:611 -22.[Medline]
  31. Erek E, Sever MS, Akoglu E, Sariyar M, Bozfakioglu S, Apaydin S, et al. Cost of renal replacement therapy in Turkey. Nephrology (Carlton)2004; 9:33 -8.[Medline]
  32. Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh A, Wong HS, Tan CC, Ahmad G, et al. Economic evaluation of centre haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Ministry of Health hospitals, Malaysia. Nephrology (Carlton)2005; 10:25 -32.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lo, W.-K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lo, W.-K.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS