Randomized controlled trials for comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12772/v2 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Mei-lan Sun ◽

Bo Wang ◽

Piao Zhang ◽

yong zhang

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Catheter Placement ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12772/v1 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Mei-lan Sun ◽

Bo Wang ◽

Piao Zhang ◽

yong zhang

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Catheter Placement ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text

Comparison of clinical effects between icodextrin and glucose solutions on outcomes of peritoneal dialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Renal Replacement Therapy ◽

10.1186/s41100-019-0253-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Atsuhiro Kanno ◽

Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽

Takayuki Fujii ◽

Emi Fujikura ◽

Kimio Watanabe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Clinical Effects ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Effects of ACEIs and ARBs on the Residual Renal Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2020/6762029 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Lei Ding ◽

Jingjuan Yang ◽

Lizhu Li ◽

Yi Yang

Keyword(s):

Renal Function ◽

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Active Control ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Residual Renal Function ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Active Control Group ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background. In peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could protect residual renal function is still controversial. To assess the effects of ACEIs and ARBs on the residual renal function and cardiovascular (CV) events in peritoneal dialysis patients, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Materials and Methods. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the CNKI database, and the Wanfang database for relevant articles from database inception to November 30, 2019. Randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was the decline in the residual renal function (RRF). Results. Thirteen trials with 625 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The average residual GFR declined by 1.79 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the ACEI/ARB group versus 1.44 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the placebo or active control group at 3 mo. The average residual GFR declined by 2.02 versus 2.06, 2.16 versus 2.72, and -0.04 versus 2.74 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the placebo or active control group at 6 months (mo), 12 mo, and 24 mo, respectively. The decline in residual GFR showed a significant difference between the ACEI/ARB group and the placebo or active control group at 12 mo (MD=−0.64 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI: -0.97~-0.32; I2=44%; P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed in Kt/V, urinary protein excretion, weekly creatinine clearance, CV events, or serum potassium levels. Conclusions. In the present study, we found that the use of ACEIs and ARBs, especially long-term treatment, decreased the decline of RRF in patients on PD. ACEIs and ARBs do not cause an additional risk of side effects.

Download Full-text