Predictive factors for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Survival: a ten-year single center study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25796/bdd.v7i4.85243

Keywords:

peritoneal dialysis, survival, mechanical complicatio

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: Timely insertion and adequate management of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) related complications are crucial for the success of Peritoneal Dialysis. The aim of this study was to review the peritoneal dialysis catheter outcomes at our center, identifying factors that influence catheter survival.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 146 PD patients who received their first PDC between August/ 2012 and July/2022. The mean follow-up was 26.5 ± 22.7 months.

Results: Mean age was 55.1 ± 16.6 years, and 58.2% were male. Peritonitis occurred in 75 patients (51.4%), with 26 (34.7%) requiring catheter removal. Mechanical complications were observed in 66 patients (45.2%), with 16 requiring catheter removal. Catheter survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was 80.2%, 72.4%, and 61.6%, respectively. Non-infectious complications (p=0.006) and peritonitis episodes (p=0.017) were associated with higher rate of PDC-associated removal. In the multivariate analysis, non-infectious complications were the only independent variable significantly associated with catheter survival (Hazard ratio 2.53; 95% CI 1.383–4.624). No association was found between PDC survival and age, diabetic status, obesity, prior kidney transplant, previous abdominal surgery, or method of catheter insertion.

Conclusions: Despite the significant number of infectious complications, including peritonitis, these did not result in a substantial decrease in catheter survival in the multivariate analysis. These findings emphasize the importance of effectively managing non-infectious complications to ensure successful and long-term use of PDCs. Preventive measures, such as omentectomy simultaneously with PDC implantation, may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a well-established renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The success of peritoneal dialysis as renal replacement therapy depends on a well-functioning peritoneal catheter[1].

Complications associated with PD catheters (PDC) significantly contribute to patient morbidity, leading to interruptions in treatment and decreased dialysis efficacy[2][3]. These complications often cause the need to transfer to hemodialysis, hospitalization, and surgical procedures.

The success and longevity of PD are frequently challenged by both infectious and non-infectious complications [1,2].

Infections, particularly peritonitis, are widely recognized as major causes of technique failure and morbidity in PD patients[1][2][4][5]. Peritonitis not only compromises immediate health but also has long-term implications on the functionality and survival of the PD catheter. Prevention and effective treatment of peritonitis is critical to reduce technique failure and the need for catheter removal[4].

Non-infectious complications, although less frequently discussed, also pose significant challenges to the survival of PD catheters and overall patient outcomes[3][6]. These include mechanical issues such as outflow failure, catheter migration, and omental wrapping, as well as hernias, hemoperitoneum, and dialysate leaks[7]. Such complications can lead to recurrent interventions, increased healthcare costs, and reduced adherence to PD therapy[8].

This study aims to review the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) outcomes at our center and to identify factors that significantly influence catheter longevity, providing insights that can enhance management strategies for maintaining PD efficacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study including all PD patients who had their first PD catheter implanted between the 1st of August 2012 and the 31st of July 2022 in our institution.

All catheters were double-cuffed, pig-tailed Tenckhoff catheters. Most PD catheters were placed surgically by two surgeons (mini-laparotomy or laparoscopy). A minority of catheters (n=8) were placed percutaneously by one nephrologist, using the Seldinger technique.

The medical records of the 146 patients included in the study were reviewed for their demographic and clinical characteristics, including age, gender, underlying etiology of ESRD, comorbidities, and prior abdominal surgeries. During the follow-up, we collected data regarding infectious and non-infectious complications. Early complications were defined as those developing within 30 days after PDC insertion, whereas late complications were defined as those developing after 30 days.

The primary endpoint was PD catheter failure, defined as the removal of the PD catheter due to catheter-related complications. The catheter-related complications were divided into infectious and non-infectious. PD catheter infectious complications included exit-site infections (ESI), tunnel infections (TI), and peritonitis. The non-infectious complications included outflow failure due to catheter migration/ mal-positioning, omental wrap, catheter leakage, post-incisional hernia, hemoperitoneum, and pleuro-peritoneal shunt.

The catheter survivor was defined as a patient who had maintained PD by the end of follow-up or had PDC removal due to issues unrelated to PDC, such as patient death, kidney transplantation, patient demand, inadequate PD, or improved residual renal function.

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS, version 28 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages, and continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The Pearson χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze categorical variables. For continuous variables, the means were compared using the Student’s t-test. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate catheter survival. Cox regression model was used to identify factors that were independently associated with catheter survival. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

The study population included 85 men (58.2%) and 61 women (41.8%). The mean age at the PDC insertion time was 55.1 ± 16.6 years (Table I.)

The mean follow-up was 26.5 ± 22.7 months. Chronic glomerulonephritis was the most common etiology of stage 5 chronic kidney disease (n=49, 33.6%), followed by diabetes mellitus (n=41, 28%). Ninety patients (61.6%) had one or more comorbidities, and 51 (34.9%) of them had diabetes mellitus. Seventeen (11,6%) had previous abdominal surgery: cholecystectomy in 7, hysterectomy in 3, appendicectomy in 3, previous kidney transplant in 3, and total gastrectomy with Roux-en-y oesophagojejunostomy in one patient.

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS
Age (years), mean (SD)55.1 16.7
Sex (male), n (%)85 (58.2)
Etiology of chronic kidney disease, n (%)
Chronic glomerulonephritis49 (33.6)
Diabetes mellitus41 (28)
Chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis17 (11.6)
Polycystic kidney disease5 (3.4)
Hypertension4 (2.7)
Others9 (6.2)
Unknown21 (14.4)
One or more comorbidities, n (%)90 (61.6)
Diabetes mellitus51 (34.9)
Major cardiovascular disease*38 (26)
Obesity32 (21.9)
Prior kidney transplant19 (13.0)
Previous abdominal surgery, n (%)17 (11.6)
PD catheter insertion technique, n (%)
Mini-laparotomy90 (61.6)
Laparoscopy48 (32.9)
Seldinger (percutaneously)8 (5.5)
Table I.Patient demographic and clinical characteristics

In 90 patients (61.6%), the PDC was inserted using a mini-laparotomy approach, whereas the laparoscopic method was used in 48 patients (32.9%). Only 8 patients (5.5%) had their catheter placed percutaneously using the Seldinger technique.

PD-related infectious complications

The total number of patients who experienced one or more episodes of peritonitis during the follow-up period was 75 (51.4%). Among these, 48 patients had a single episode, while 27 patients had more than one episode of peritonitis. Twenty-six patients (34.7%) required removal of their peritoneal dialysis catheter due to refractory peritonitis.

Thirty-four patients (23.3%) had a single episode of PD catheter-related exit site or tunnel infection, while 43 (29.5%) had more than one event. The number of early ESI/TI

.....

References

Chaudhary K. Peritoneal Dialysis Drop-out: Causes and Prevention Strategies. Int J Nephrol. 2011;2011:434608. doi:10.4061/2011/434608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/434608

Dong X, Wu H, Ye H, et al. Incidence and Risk Factors Associated with Technique Failure in the First Year of Peritoneal Dialysis: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study in Southern China. BMC Nephrol. Jun 11 2022;23(1):207. doi:10.1186/s12882-022-02833-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-022-02833-4

Martínez-Mier G, Luna-Castillo M, Ortiz-Enríquez JJ, et al. Factors associated with early peritoneal dialysis catheter replacement in Veracruz, Mexico. Nefrologia. May 14 2012;32(3):353-8. doi:10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2012.Jan.11295

Chow KM, Li PK, Cho Y, et al. ISPD Catheter-related Infection Recommendations: 2023 Update. Perit Dial Int. May 2023;43(3):201-219. doi:10.1177/08968608231172740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08968608231172740

Nodaira Y, Ikeda N, Kobayashi K, et al. Risk factors and cause of removal of peritoneal dialysis catheter in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Adv Perit Dial. 2008;24:65-8.

Singh N, Davidson I, Minhajuddin A, Gieser S, Nurenberg M, Saxena R. Risk factors associated with peritoneal dialysis catheter survival: a 9-year single-center study in 315 patients. J Vasc Access. 2010;11(4):316-22. doi:10.5301/jva.2010.5774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/JVA.2010.5774

Cheng XBJ, Bargman J. Complications of Peritoneal Dialysis Part I: Mechanical Complications. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. Jun 01 2024;19(6):784-790. doi:10.2215/CJN.0000000000000417 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.0000000000000417

McCormick BB, Bargman JM. Noninfectious complications of peritoneal dialysis: implications for patient and technique survival. J Am Soc Nephrol. Dec 2007;18(12):3023-5. doi:10.1681/ASN.2007070796 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2007070796

Gadallah MF, Pervez A, el-Shahawy MA, et al. Peritoneoscopic versus surgical placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters: a prospective randomized study on outcome. Am J Kidney Dis. Jan 1999;33(1):118-22. doi:10.1016/s0272-6386(99)70266-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6386(99)70266-0

Apostolidis NS, Panoussopoulos DG, Manouras AJ, Pararas BN, Voudiklari SG, Zirogiannis PN. The use of TWH catheters in CAPD patients: fourteen-year experience in technique, survival, and complication rates. Perit Dial Int. 1998;18(4):424-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089686089801800413

Kang SH, Park JW, Cho KH, Do JY. Comparison of peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion techniques by nephrologists: Surgical vs blind methods. Semin Dial. Jan 2021;34(1):31-37. doi:10.1111/sdi.12904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12904

Goh YH. Omental folding: a novel laparoscopic technique for salvaging peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int. 2008;28(6):626-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089686080802800614

Yang CY, Chen TW, Lin YP, et al. Determinants of catheter loss following continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis peritonitis. Perit Dial Int. 2008;28(4):361-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089686080802800410

Tiong HY, Poh J, Sunderaraj K, Wu YJ, Consigliere DT. Surgical complications of Tenckhoff catheters used in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Singapore Med J. Aug 2006;47(8):707-11.

Crabtree JH, Burchette RJ. Effect of prior abdominal surgery, peritonitis, and adhesions on catheter function and long-term outcome on peritoneal dialysis. Am Surg. Feb 2009;75(2):140-7. doi:10.1177/000313480907500206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000313480907500206

Eroglu E, Heimbürger O, Lindholm B. Peritoneal dialysis patient selection from a comorbidity perspective. Semin Dial. Jan 2022;35(1):25-39. doi:10.1111/sdi.12927 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12927

Krezalek MA, Bonamici N, Kuchta K, et al. Peritoneal dialysis catheter function and survival are not adversely affected by obesity regardless of the operative technique used. Surg Endosc. Apr 2018;32(4):1714-1723. doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5852-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5852-y

Chen Y, Shao Y, Xu J. The Survival and Complication Rates of Laparoscopic Versus Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. Oct 2015;25(5):440-3. doi:10.1097/SLE.0000000000000188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000188

Boujelbane L, Fu N, Chapla K, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical insertion of PD catheters in dialysis patients: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2015;16(6):498-505. doi:10.5301/jva.5000439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000439

Tullavardhana T, Akranurakkul P, Ungkitphaiboon W, Songtish D. Surgical versus percutaneous techniques for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: A meta-analysis of the outcomes. Ann Med Surg (Lond). Sep 2016;10:11-8. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2016.07.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.07.007

Crabtree JH, Shrestha BM, Chow KM, et al. Creating and Maintaining Optimal Peritoneal Dialysis Access in the Adult Patient: 2019 Update. Perit Dial Int. 2019;39(5):414-436. doi:10.3747/pdi.2018.00232 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2018.00232

Submitted

2024-09-23

Accepted

2024-11-04

Published

2024-11-09

How to Cite

1.
Beirão Rodrigues B, Freitas M, S. Borges J, Pereira B, Prata C, Castro R, Morgado T. Predictive factors for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Survival: a ten-year single center study . Bull Dial Domic [Internet]. 2024 Nov. 9 [cited 2025 Nov. 1];7(4):137-4. Available from: https://bdd.rdplf.org/index.php/bdd/article/view/85243