ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Comparison of immediate-start peritoneal dialysis without break-in period and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a two-center retrospective audit.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peritoneal dialysis associated peritonitis and Clostridioides difficile infection: Association or different entities?CEN case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImmediate-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) has emerged as a strategy for patients in need of urgent dialysis. However, the ideal timing for initiating this procedure remains uncertain. In this study, we aimed to compare complications and outcomes between immediate-start PD and conventional-start PD.
methodsWe performed a two-center retrospective cohort study between 1 January 2015 and 31 May 2020. Patients who underwent PD were divided into immediate-start PD (without break-in period) and conventional-start PD group (break-in period within at least 14 days). The primary outcomes were the incidence of the mechanical complications and infectious complication. The secondary outcomes were technique failure and patient survival.
resultsA total of 209 patients (106 in the immediate-start PD group and 103 in the conventional-start PD group) were included. Immediate-start PD had significantly lower catheter malfunction or migration rate compare with conventional-start PD (2.8% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.003) but comparable rates of dialysate leaks, pleuroperitoneal leaks, and hemoperitoneum. Infectious complications (exit-site infection and peritonitis) were similar between groups. Technique survival was comparable (7.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.22), while immediate-start PD exhibited lower mortality rates (0.9% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.001).
conclusionImmediate-start PD appears to be a viable option for patients in need of urgent dialysis, with reduced catheter complications and comparable infectious complications and technique survival when compared to conventional-start PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38441870What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.