Search

COVID-19 vaccine is recommended in Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, but a paucity of data is available regarding vaccine-related adverse effects among PD patients.A cross-sectional study was conducted in a single center between October and November 2021. PD patients were provided with the online survey link to participate in the study.A total of 107 PD patients responded to the survey (55%: male, 79%: Chinese, 40%: 65 years old). Of these, 95% received the COVID-19 vaccine (77% received two doses and 22% received three doses). Most participants (91%) received Pfizer vaccine. The main source of vaccine information was from the government (48%). The most common reason to receive and refuse vaccines were the perception of the seriousness of COVID-19 infection (63%) and concern about vaccine safety (60%), respectively. After the first dose, 25% of patients developed one or more vaccine-related adverse effects. Common local adverse effect was pain at the injection site (21%), and systemic adverse effects were muscle pain (15%), fatigue (13%). Similar adverse effects were observed with subsequent doses. None of them required hospitalization for vaccine-related adverse effects. Female patients had a higher risk of developing adverse effects than male patients after the first dose (odds ratio: 3.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 - 9.08). No such difference was observed in the subsequent dose. Age, race, employment status and history of drug allergy were not associated with the risk of adverse effects.The COVID-19 vaccine was well-tolerated by most PD patients, but few experienced non-severe adverse effects. All PD patients should be vaccinated against SAR-COV-2 infection.

There has been a growing interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease to avoid central venous catheter use and its complications. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between urgent-start PD (defined as PD commencement within 2 weeks of PD catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD. This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2017 and February 2018. The primary outcome was dialysate leak. Secondary outcomes included catheter malfunction, catheter readjustment, exit-site infection, peritonitis, technique and patient survival. A total of 187 incident PD patients were included. Of these, 66 (35%) initiated urgent-start PD. Dialysate leak was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD groups (7.6% versus 0.8%; p = 0.02) whilst catheter malfunction (4.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.70) and catheter readjustment (1.5% vs. 2.5%; p = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups. Exit-site infection was comparable (IRR: 0.66 95% CI 0.25–1.74) whilst peritonitis was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–7.44). Time to first episode of peritonitis, particularly Gram-positive peritonitis was significantly shorter with urgent-start PD. Technique survival (hazards ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% CI 0.89–4.31) and patient survival (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.44–4.87) were comparable between the two groups. Urgent-start PD was associated with higher risks of dialysate leak and peritonitis but comparable technique and patient survival compared to conventional-start PD.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the only well-established home-based dialysis therapy in Singapore. As it is a home-based modality, PD should be considered as a preferred mode of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) for patients with kidney failure during this COVID-19 pandemic as it avoids frequent visits to hospitals and/or satellite dialysis centres. The highly infectious nature of this virus has led to the implementation of the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition orange status in Singapore since early February 2020. This paper summarises the strategies for management of several aspects of PD in Singapore during this COVID-19 pandemic, including PD catheter insertion, PD training, home visit and assisted PD, outpatient PD clinic, inpatient management of PD patients with or without COVID-19 infection, PD as KRT for COVID-19 patients with acute kidney injury, management of common complications in PD (peritonitis and fluid overload), and management of PD inventory. Keywords: Home-based dialysis, kidney failure, practice, SARS-CoV-2

The study aimed to examine effect of chlorhexidine dressing in the prevention of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection in PD patients. This single-center pilot study recruited 50 incident PD patients to use weekly chlorhexidine dressing. The primary outcome was exit-site/tunnel infection rate. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, time to first PD-related infection, infection-related hospitalization, technique and patient survival, adverse events, and chlorhexidine dressing acceptability. These clinical outcomes were compared with those of a historical cohort (2016–2017) using daily gentamicin cream. A total of 50 patients were recruited to use chlorhexidine and followed up for one year. The exit-site/tunnel infection rate was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–0.22) and peritonitis rate was 0.07 (95% CI 0.01–0.19) episodes per patient-year with chlorhexidine dressing. The 1-year infection-free survival rates for exit-site/tunnel infection and peritonitis were 92% and 94%, respectively. The 1-year technique and patient survival rates were 86% and 96%, respectively. Overall, 12% of participants developed localized contact dermatitis with chlorhexidine. Most participants (73%) reported that chlorhexidine dressings were very acceptable. Compared to a historical cohort using gentamicin cream (n = 238), the chlorhexidine group had similar exit-site/tunnel infection rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.22–1.92) but had lower peritonitis rates (IRR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07–0.77), and lower PD infection-related hospitalization rates (IRR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.69) after adjusting for age, sex, race, primary kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus. Weekly chlorhexidine dressing was associated with acceptable PD-related infection outcomes and was well-accepted by patients, although had a 12% rate of delayed localized contact dermatitis. The study was registered under www.clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number of NCT03406520 on 23 January 2018.

Early technique failure is a serious complication for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The study aimed to examine the incidence, causes, and risk factors associated with early technique failure. METHODS: This retrospective study included all incident PD patients in a hospital in Singapore from 2013 to 2017. The primary outcome was early technique failure, which was defined as transfer to hemodialysis for ≥ 30 days or death, within the first year of PD initiation. Secondary outcomes were death, technique failure due to PD infection, and death-censored technique failure.Overall, 517 patients were included in the study. Of these, 98 patients (19.0%) developed early technique failure. The common causes of early technique failure were death (41.8%) and infection (40.8%). Peripheral vascular disease was significantly associated with a higher hazard of early technique failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-3.63] and death (HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.71-8.21), whilst glomerulonephritis as a cause of end-stage kidney disease (compared with hypertension) was associated with a lower hazard of early technique failure (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.77) and death (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.37). Male gender was associated with early technique failure due to PD infection (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.32-4.95). No specific factor was associated with death-censored early technique failure.Technique failure in the first year of PD initiation occurs in one-fifth of PD patients and is associated with peripheral vascular disease and cause of end-stage kidney disease.

ObjectivePrevention of exit-site infection (ESI) is of paramount importance to peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine in the prevention of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin.MethodsThis retrospective, pre-test/post-test observational study included all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital from 2012 to 2015. Patients received daily topical exit-site application of either mupirocin (2012 – 2013) or chlorhexidine (2014 – 2015) in addition to routine exit-site cleaning with 10% povidone-iodine. The primary outcome was ESI rate during the 2 time periods. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis rate, times to first ESI and peritonitis, hospitalization rate, and infection-related catheter removal. Event rates were analyzed using Poisson regression, and infection-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analyses.ResultsThe study included 162 patients in the mupirocin period (follow-up 141.5 patient-years) and 175 patients in the chlorhexidine period (follow-up 136.9 patient-years). Compared with mupirocin-treated patients, chlorhexidine-treated patients experienced more frequent ESIs (0.22 vs 0.12 episodes/patient-year, p = 0.048), although this was no longer statistically significant following multivariable analysis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 – 3.26, p = 0.06). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to time to first ESI ( p = 0.10), peritonitis rate ( p = 0.95), time to first peritonitis ( p = 0.60), hospitalization rate ( p = 0.21) or catheter removal rate (0.03 vs 0.04/patient-year, p = 0.56).ConclusionsTopical exit-site application of chlorhexidine cream was associated with a borderline significant, higher rate of ESI in incident PD patients compared with mupirocin cream.

Diabetes is an important cause of end stage renal failure worldwide. As renal impairment progresses, managing hyperglycaemia can prove increasingly challenging, as many medications are contra-indicated in moderate to severe renal impairment. Whilst evidence for tight glycaemic control reducing progression to renal failure in patients with established renal disease is limited, poor glycaemic control is not desirable, and is likely to lead to progressive complications. Metformin is first line therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes, as it appears to be effective in reducing diabetes related end points and mortality in overweight patients. Cessation of metformin in patients with progressive renal disease may not only lead to deterioration in glucose control, but also to loss of protection from cardiovascular disease in a cohort of patients at particularly high risk. We advocate the need for further study to determine the role of metformin in patients with severe renal disease (chronic kidney disease stage 4–5), as well as patients on dialysis, or pre-/peri- renal transplantation. We explore possible roles of metformin in these circumstances, and suggest potential key areas for further study.

Introduction: Glycated hemoglobin is used to assess diabetic control although its accuracy in dialysis has been questioned. How does it compare to the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients? Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60 insulin-treated diabetic patients on PD. We determined the mean interstitial glucose concentration and the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (11 mmol/l). Results: The correlation between HbA1c and glucose was 0.48, p < 0.0001. Three of 15 patients with HbA1c >75 mmol/mol experienced significant hypoglycemia (14-144 min per day). The patients with frequent episodes of hypoglycemia could not be differentiated from those with frequent hyperglycemia by demographics or PD prescription. Conclusion: HbA1c and average glucose levels measured by the CGMS are only weakly correlated. On its own, HbA1c as an indicator of glycemic control in patients with diabetes on PD appears inadequate. We suggest that the CGMS technology should be more widely adopted.

Background: Fluid status is an independent predictor of mortality in dialysis patients. Current methods of fluid assessment have several limitations. Summary: An ideal method should be cheap, portable, easy to perform without extensive training, reproducible and determines patients' excess or deficit of total body water. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) fulfils many of these criteria and can give additional information on fat and lean tissue composition. The accuracy and precision of BIA has been shown to be equivalent to the ‘gold standard' direct estimation techniques. Key Messages: Although there remains some concern about its validity in dialysis patients, fluid overload determined by BIA has been shown to predict mortality. BIA-guided fluid management appears superior to conventional fluid management in achieving clinically important outcomes such as reduction in blood pressure, left ventricular mass index, and arterial stiffness. Accurate setting of dry weight might also help preserve residual renal function by limiting episodes of dehydration. Nevertheless, as with all new technologies, there are issues that still need to be resolved. This will be achieved only with larger prospective interventional studies to explore its specific roles in dialysis cohorts.