Rabindranath K S, Adams J, Ali T Z, MacLeod A M, Vale L, Cody J, Wallace S A, Daly C
Royal Berkshire Hospital, Renal Unit, London Rd, Reading, UK, RG1 5AN.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):CD006515. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006515.
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be performed either manually as in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or using mechanical devices as in automated PD (APD). APD has been considered to have several advantages over CAPD such as reduced incidence of peritonitis, mechanical complications and greater psychosocial acceptability.
To assess the comparative efficacy of CAPD and APD in patients who are dialysed for end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register and CINAHL. Authors of included studies were contacted, reference lists of identified RCTs and relevant narrative reviews were screened. Date of most recent search: May 2006
RCTs comparing CAPD with APD in patients with ESRD.
Data were abstracted independently by two authors onto a standard form. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous data and a mean difference (MD) for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Three trials (139 patients) were included. APD did not differ from CAPD with respect to mortality (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.37), risk of peritonitis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11), switching from original PD modality to a different dialysis modality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.02), hernias (RR 1.26, 95% interval 0.32 to 5.01), PD fluid leaks (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.83), PD catheter removal (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.48) or hospital admissions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.17). There was no difference between either PD modality with respect to residual renal function (MD -0.17, 95% CI -1.66 to 1.32). One study found that peritonitis rates and hospitalisation were significantly less in patients on APD when results were expressed as episodes/patient-year. Another study found that patients on APD had significantly more time for work, family and social activities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: APD has not been shown to have significant advantages over CAPD in terms of important clinical outcomes. APD may however be considered advantageous in select group of patients such as in the younger PD population and those in employment or education due to its psychosocial advantages. There is a need for a RCT comparing CAPD with APD with sufficiently large patient numbers looking at important clinical outcomes including residual renal function, accompanied by an economic evaluation to clarify the relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of both modalities.
腹膜透析(PD)既可以像持续性非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)那样手动进行,也可以使用机械装置如自动化腹膜透析(APD)来进行。APD被认为比CAPD有几个优点,如腹膜炎发病率降低、机械并发症减少以及更高的社会心理可接受性。
评估CAPD和APD在终末期肾病(ESRD)透析患者中的相对疗效。
我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、Cochrane肾脏组专业注册库和护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)。联系了纳入研究的作者,筛选了已识别随机对照试验(RCT)的参考文献列表和相关叙述性综述。最近一次检索日期:2006年5月
比较ESRD患者中CAPD与APD的RCT。
由两位作者独立将数据提取到标准表格中。二分数据的相对风险(RR)和连续数据的平均差(MD)采用95%置信区间(CI)进行计算。
纳入了三项试验(139例患者)。在死亡率(RR 1.49,95%CI 0.51至4.37)、腹膜炎风险(RR 0.75,95%CI 0.50至1.11)、从原腹膜透析方式转换为不同透析方式(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.25至1.02)、疝气(RR 1.26,95%区间0.32至5.01)、腹膜透析液渗漏(RR 1.06,95%CI 0.11至9.83)、腹膜透析导管拔除(RR 0.64,95%CI 0.27至1.48)或住院情况(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.43至2.17)方面,APD与CAPD没有差异。两种腹膜透析方式在残余肾功能方面也没有差异(MD -0.17,95%CI -1.66至1.32)。一项研究发现,当结果以发作次数/患者年表示时,APD患者腹膜炎发生率和住院率显著更低。另一项研究发现,APD患者有更多时间用于工作、家庭和社交活动。
在重要临床结局方面,APD并未显示出比CAPD有显著优势。然而,由于其社会心理优势,APD在特定患者群体中可能被认为是有利的,如年轻的腹膜透析人群以及就业或接受教育的人群。有必要进行一项比较CAPD与APD的RCT,纳入足够多的患者,观察包括残余肾功能在内的重要临床结局,并进行经济评估以阐明两种方式的相对临床和成本效益。