Fenton S S, Cattran D C, Barnes N M, Waugh K J
Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1977;23:194-200. doi: 10.1097/00002480-197700230-00053.
The institution of a home peritoneal dialysis program has allowed us to increase the number of patients with end-stage renal failure entering our home dialysis program from 42.5% to 67.5% of the total population. This represents a 56.5% increase over the rate achieved by home hemodialysis alone. Twenty-four percent of the home peritoneal dialysis patients could have managed home hemodialysis, but 38 could not and this represents 48% of the total patients who entered our home dialysis program, for the period of the study. These patients would have required institutional dialysis which would not have been practical for 52.6% of them because of the distance they live from Toronto. The results of home peritoneal dialysis have compared favorably with home hemodialysis in the 2 concurrent but unmatched series in respect of training time, failure rate, need for in-hospital back-up and patient survival. A long-term study of matched patients randomized to either treatment group such as that described by Blumenkrantz will finally answer the question as to how valid is our contention that peritoneal dialysis compares favourably to hemodialysis for the treatment of end-stage renal failure.
家庭腹膜透析项目的设立，使我们能够将进入家庭透析项目的终末期肾衰竭患者数量占总人口的比例从42.5%提高到67.5%。这比仅采用家庭血液透析所达到的比例增加了56.5%。在参与研究期间，24%的家庭腹膜透析患者本可进行家庭血液透析，但有38人无法进行，这占进入我们家庭透析项目的患者总数的48%。这些患者原本需要机构透析，但由于他们居住的地方距离多伦多较远，对其中52.6%的患者来说这并不实际。在培训时间、失败率、住院备用需求和患者生存率方面，家庭腹膜透析的结果与同期但不匹配的两个家庭血液透析系列相比具有优势。像布卢门克朗茨所描述的那样，对随机分配到任一治疗组的匹配患者进行长期研究，最终将回答我们关于腹膜透析在治疗终末期肾衰竭方面比血液透析更具优势这一论点的正确性的问题。
