ASN's Mission

ASN leads the fight to prevent, treat, and cure kidney diseases throughout the world by educating health professionals and scientists, advancing research and innovation, communicating new knowledge, and advocating for the highest quality care for patients.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on Twitter

Kidney Week

Abstract: FR-OR108

Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Modality and Interference in Daily Life: Results from the PDOPPS

Session Information

Category: Dialysis

  • 703 Dialysis: Peritoneal Dialysis

Authors

  • Moraes, Thyago Proença de, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil
  • Zhao, Junhui, Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • Fuller, Douglas S., Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • McCullough, Keith, Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • Bieber, Brian, Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • Robinson, Bruce M., Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • Pisoni, Ronald L., Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
  • Davies, Simon J., University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom
  • Perl, Jeffrey, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Group or Team Name

  • on behalf of PDOPPS Dialysis Prescription and Fluid Management working group
Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including quality of life and life participation activities, are important considerations for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. The relative effects of automated (APD) vs. continuous ambulatory (CAPD) modalities on PROs remain controversial.

Methods

We analyzed cross-sectional clinical and patient-reported data from the PD Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS; 2014-2017; Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, UK, US). Patients rated dialysis interference with 9 aspects of daily life on a 7-point Likert scale. Linear and logistic regressions were used to estimate associations of PD modality with the interference item scores (mean and grouped as response levels 4-6 vs 0-3), KDQOL Mental Component Summary (MCS), Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores, and the 10-item CES-D depression screening scale (scale scores grouped as ≥10 vs <10), adjusted for demographic, comorbidity, and treatment variables.

Results

The analysis included 1800 APD and 892 CAPD patients. After adjustment, APD (v. CAPD) patients had 0.04 higher mean interference score (95% CI=-0.09, 0.18), 0.05 lower MCS (-1.19, 1.09), 0.73 lower PCS (-1.73, 0.26), and 1.17 (0.94, 1.45) higher odds of CES-D ≥10 vs <10. APD (v. CAPD) patients reported less interference with employment (adjusted OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.62-1.12) and total PD time (0.86, 0.68-1.08), and greater interference with intimacy (1.18, 0.96-1.46) and the lives of family/friends (1.36, 1.09-1.70).

Conclusion

Summary PROs were generally similar for APD and CAPD patients, potentially due to non-randomized modality choice. However, domain specific differences in interference scores were observed that may be informative for patients when choosing PD modality type. Across both modalities, PD appears to interfere for the majority in domains of travel and employment suggesting that these are important areas to reduce the overall interference of PD with life activities.

Funding

  • Commercial Support