Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis.

backgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue. MAIN

resultsA total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.