Wallace Eric L, Fissell Rachel B, Golper Thomas A, Blake Peter G, Lewin Adriane M, Oliver Matthew J, Quinn Rob R
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Birmingham, AL, USA
Vanderbilt University, Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Nashville, TN, USA.
Perit Dial Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;36(4):382-6. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2015.00089. Epub 2015 Oct 22.
♦
In general, efforts to standardize care based on group consensus practice guidelines have resulted in lower morbidity and mortality. Although there are published guidelines regarding insertion and perioperative management of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters, variation in practice patterns between centers may exist. The objective of this study is to understand variation in PD catheter insertion practices in preparation for conducting future studies. ♦
An electronic survey was developed by the research committee of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis - North American Research Consortium (ISPD-NARC) to be completed by physicians and nurses involved in PD programs across North America. It consisted of 45 questions related to 1) organizational characteristics; 2) PD catheter insertion practices; 3) current quality-improvement initiatives; and 4) interest in participation in PD studies. Invitation to participate in the survey was given to nephrologists and nurses in centers across Canada and the United States (US) identified by participation in the inaugural meeting of the ISPD-NARC. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the data. ♦
Fifty-one ISPD-NARC sites were identified (45% in Canada and 55% in the US) of which 42 responded (82%). Center size varied significantly, with prevalent PD population ranging from 6 - 300 (median: 60) and incident PD patients in the year prior to survey administration ranging from 3 - 180 (median: 20). The majority of centers placed fewer than 19 PD catheters/year, with a range of 0 - 50. Availability of insertion techniques varied significantly, with 83% of centers employing more than 1 insertion technique. Seventy-one percent performed laparoscopic insertion with advanced techniques (omentectomy, omentopexy, and lysis of adhesions), 62% of sites performed open surgical dissection, 10% performed blind insertion via trocar, and 29% performed blind placement with the Seldinger technique. Use of double-cuff catheters was nearly universal, with a near even distribution of catheters with pre-formed bend versus straight inter-cuff segments. There was also variation in the choice of perioperative antibiotics and perioperative flushing practices. Although 86% of centers had quality-improvement initiatives, there was little consensus as to appropriate targets. ♦
There is marked variability in PD catheter insertion techniques and perioperative management. Large multicenter studies are needed to determine associations between these practices and catheter and patient outcomes. This research could inform future trials and guidelines and improve practice. The ISPD-NARC is a network of PD units that has been formed to conduct multicenter studies in PD.
♦
总体而言,基于群体共识实践指南来规范护理的努力已降低了发病率和死亡率。尽管已有关于腹膜透析(PD)导管插入术及围手术期管理的指南发表,但各中心的实践模式可能存在差异。本研究的目的是了解PD导管插入术的实践差异,为开展未来研究做准备。♦
国际腹膜透析学会北美研究联盟(ISPD - NARC)的研究委员会设计了一项电子调查问卷,由北美各地参与PD项目的医生和护士完成。问卷包含45个问题,涉及1)组织特征;2)PD导管插入术的实践;3)当前的质量改进举措;4)参与PD研究的兴趣。参与ISPD - NARC首次会议的加拿大和美国(美国)各中心的肾病学家和护士收到了参与调查的邀请。采用描述性统计方法分析数据。♦
共确定了51个ISPD - NARC站点(加拿大占45%,美国占55%),其中42个做出了回应(82%)。中心规模差异显著,PD患者总数在6至300人之间(中位数:60人),调查前一年新接受PD治疗的患者人数在3至180人之间(中位数:20人)。大多数中心每年置入的PD导管少于19根,范围为0至50根。插入技术的可用性差异显著,83%的中心采用了不止一种插入技术。71%的中心采用先进技术(网膜切除术、网膜固定术和粘连松解术)进行腹腔镜插入,62%的站点进行开放手术解剖,10%的中心通过套管针进行盲目插入,29%的中心采用Seldinger技术进行盲目置入。双套囊导管的使用几乎普及,套囊间预弯段导管与直段导管的分布几乎均匀。围手术期抗生素的选择和围手术期冲洗操作也存在差异。尽管86%的中心有质量改进举措,但对于合适的目标几乎没有共识。♦
PD导管插入技术和围手术期管理存在显著差异。需要开展大型多中心研究来确定这些实践与导管及患者结局之间的关联。这项研究可为未来试验和指南提供参考并改善实践。ISPD - NARC是一个PD单位网络,已组建起来开展PD方面的多中心研究。