+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Home Visit Program Improves Technique Survival in Peritoneal Dialysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home therapy, and technique survival is related to the adherence to PD prescription at home. The presence of a home visit program could improve PD outcomes. We evaluated its effects on clinical outcome during 1 year of follow-up. Methods: This was a case-control study. The case group included all 96 patients who performed PD in our center on January 1, 2013, and who attended a home visit program; the control group included all 92 patients who performed PD on January 1, 2008. The home visit program consisted of several additional visits to reinforce patients' confidence in PD management in their own environment. Outcomes were defined as technique failure, peritonitis episode, and hospitalization. Clinical and dialysis features were evaluated for each patient. Results: The case group was significantly older (p = 0.048), with a lower grade of autonomy (p = 0.033), but a better hemoglobin level (p = 0.02) than the control group. During the observational period, we had 11 episodes of technique failure. We found a significant reduction in the rate of technique failure in the case group (p = 0.004). Furthermore, survival analysis showed a significant extension of PD treatment in the patients supported by the home visit program (52 vs. 48.8 weeks, p = 0.018). We did not find any difference between the two groups in terms of peritonitis and hospitalization rate; however, trends toward a reduction of Gram-positive peritonitis rates as well as prevalence and duration of hospitalization related to PD problems were identified in the case group. The retrospective nature of the analysis was a limitation of this study. Conclusion: The home visit program improves the survival of PD patients and could reduce the rate of Gram-positive peritonitis and hospitalization. Video Journal Club “Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco” at

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The cost of renal dialysis in a UK setting--a multicentre study.

          The UK National Health Service (NHS) will fund renal services using Payment by Results (PbR), from 2009. Central to the success of PbR will be the creation of tariffs that reflect the true cost of medical services. We have therefore estimated the cost of different dialysis modalities in the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust and six other hospitals in the UK. We used semi-structured interviews with nephrologists, head nurses and business managers to identify the steps involved in delivering the different dialysis modalities. We assigned costs to these using published figures or suppliers' published price lists. The study used mixed costing methods. Dialysis costs were estimated by a combination of microcosting and a top-down approach. Where we did not have access to detailed accounts, we applied values for Cardiff. The most efficient modalities were automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), the mean annual costs of which were pound21 655 and pound15 570, respectively. Hospital-based haemodialysis (HD) cost pound35 023 per annum and satellite-unit-based HD cost pound32 669. The cost of home-based HD was pound20 764 per year (based on data from only one unit). The main cost drivers for PD were the costs of solutions and management of anaemia. For HD they were costs of disposables, nursing, the overheads associated with running the unit and management of anaemia. Renal tariffs for PbR need to reflect the true cost of dialysis provision if choices about modalities are not to be influenced by erroneous estimates of cost. Knowledge of the true costs of modalities will also maximize the number of established renal failure patients treated by dialysis within the limited funds available from the NHS.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes of single organism peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: gram negatives versus gram positives in the Network 9 Peritonitis Study.

            The use of the "peritonitis rate" in the management of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis is assuming importance in comparing the prowess of facilities, care givers and new innovations. For this to be a meaningful outcome measure, the type of infection (causative pathogen) must have less clinical significance than the number of infections during a time interval. The natural history of Staphylococcus aureus, pseudomonas, and fungal peritonitis would not support that the outcome of an episode of peritonitis is independent of the causative pathogen. Could this concern be extended to other more frequently occurring pathogens? To address this, the Network 9 Peritonitis Study identified 530 episodes of single organism peritonitis caused by a gram positive organism and 136 episodes caused by a single non-pseudomonal gram negative (NPGN) pathogen. Coincidental soft tissue infections (exit site or tunnel) occurred equally in both groups. Outcomes of peritonitis were analyzed by organism classification and by presence or absence of a soft tissue infection. NPGN peritonitis was associated with significantly more frequent catheter loss, hospitalization, and technique failure and was less likely to resolve regardless of the presence or absence of a soft tissue infection. Hospitalization and death tended to occur more frequently with enterococcal peritonitis than with other gram positive peritonitis. The outcomes in the NPGN peritonitis group were significantly worse (resolution, catheter loss, hospitalization, technique failure) compared to coagulase negative staphylococcal or S. aureus peritonitis, regardless of the presence or absence of a coincidental soft tissue infection. Furthermore, for the first time, the poor outcomes of gram negative peritonitis are shown to be independent of pseudomonas or polymicrobial involvement or soft tissue infections. The gram negative organism appears to be the important factor. In addition, the outcome of peritonitis caused by S. aureus is worse than that of other staphylococci. Thus, it is clear that all peritonitis episodes cannot be considered equivalent in terms of outcome. The concept of peritonitis rate is only meaningful when specific organisms are considered.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health care costs of peritoneal dialysis technique failure and dialysis modality switching.

              Although there is a strong economic rationale in favor of peritoneal dialysis (PD) over hemodialysis (HD), the potentially costly effect of PD technique failure is an important consideration in PD program promotion that is unknown.

                Author and article information

                Blood Purif
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                October 2014
                09 July 2014
                : 37
                : 4
                : 286-290
                aDepartment of Nephrology, Dialysis, and Kidney Transplant, and bInternational Renal Research Institute of Vicenza (IRRIV), San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, and cDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy; dNephrology Department, Antalya Ataturk State Hospital, Antalya Turkey; Departments of eChemical Engineering and fEconomics, BITS, Pilani, India; gCardiometabolic Center, BNH Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
                Author notes
                *Dr. Francesca Martino, Department of Nephrology, Dialysis, and Kidney Transplant, San Bortolo Hospital, Viale Rodolfi 37, IT-36100 Vicenza (Italy), E-Mail
                365168 Blood Purif 2014;37:286-290
                © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 5
                Original Paper

                Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology

                Technique survival, Peritoneal dialysis, Home visit


                Comment on this article