Boujelbane Lamya, Fu Ning, Chapla Kevin, Melnick David, Redfield Robert R, Waheed Sana, Yevzlin Alexander S, Shin Jung-Im, Astor Brad C, Chan Micah R
Division of Nephrology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin - USA.
Division of General Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin - USA.
J Vasc Access. 2015 Nov-Dec;16(6):498-505. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000439. Epub 2015 Jun 29.
Several small studies have suggested that the percutaneous method of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion is effective and has a lower complication rate than surgical techniques (open, laparoscopic or peritoneoscopic), although no randomized, controlled study has compared these methods. Our objective was to compare percutaneous PD catheter insertion vs surgical placement in terms of 1-year catheter survival, catheter dysfunction, fluid leak and incidence of peritonitis.
We searched Medline for English-language literature from 1966 through June 2014, along with national conference proceedings and reference lists of all included publications to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were having a measure of catheter survival at 1 year, catheter dysfunction, peritonitis rate per patient-month or fluid leak as outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were not in English or if they included pediatric patients. Random effects models were used to derive the pooled risk ratios, differences in patency and their variations.
Thirteen studies with a total of 2,681 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in 1-year catheter survival in percutaneous vs surgical PD catheter placement (relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.11, p = 0.19). Catheter dysfunction also did not differ significantly between the groups (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.57-1.29, p = 0.46). The prevalence of peritoneal fluid leak also was similar for percutaneous and surgical groups (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.58-2.09, p = 0.77). However, there was a significant lower incidence of peritonitis among those with percutaneous placement (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.62-0.96, p = 0.02). Significant heterogeneity was detected across studies (I2 = 78.4%, p<0.0001).
Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in catheter survival between percutaneous and surgical placement of PD catheters. Whether there are significant benefits from percutaneous placement in terms of peritonitis rates requires further robust studies. These findings have significant implications for future design of clinical trials in the placement of PD catheters and the delivery of dialysis-related services.
多项小型研究表明,经皮腹膜透析(PD)导管插入术是有效的,且与手术技术(开放手术、腹腔镜手术或腹膜镜手术)相比并发症发生率更低,尽管尚无随机对照研究对这些方法进行比较。我们的目的是比较经皮PD导管插入术与手术置入术在导管1年生存率、导管功能障碍、液体渗漏及腹膜炎发生率方面的差异。
我们检索了1966年至2014年6月的Medline英文文献,以及全国性会议论文集和所有纳入出版物的参考文献列表,以识别相关研究。纳入标准是以1年时的导管生存率、导管功能障碍、每位患者每月的腹膜炎发生率或液体渗漏作为观察指标。如果研究不是英文的或纳入了儿科患者,则将其排除。采用随机效应模型得出合并风险比、通畅率差异及其变异。
13项研究共2681名受试者符合纳入标准。经皮与手术PD导管置入术的1年导管生存率无显著差异(相对风险[RR]=0.81;95%置信区间[CI]:0.59-1.11,p=0.19)。两组之间的导管功能障碍也无显著差异(合并比值比[OR]=0.86;95%CI:0.57-1.29,p=0.46)。经皮组和手术组的腹膜液渗漏发生率也相似(OR=1.10;95%CI:0.58-2.09,p=0.77)。然而,经皮置入者的腹膜炎发生率显著较低(发生率比[IRR]=0.77;95%CI:0.62-0.96,p=0.02)。各研究间检测到显著的异质性(I2=78.4%,p<0.0001)。
我们的结果表明,经皮与手术置入PD导管的导管生存率无显著差异。经皮置入在腹膜炎发生率方面是否有显著益处需要进一步的有力研究。这些发现对未来PD导管置入及透析相关服务的临床试验设计具有重要意义。