Assisted peritoneal dialysis compared to in-centre hemodialysis – an observational study of outcomes from the Swedish Renal Registry

Background: In-center hemodialysis (IHD) is the most common dialysis modality. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (assPD) is an option for frail and/or incapacitated patients. Both modalities can be used to alleviate uremic symptoms towards the end of life. There are few studies comparing these modalities. The primary aim is to compare hospital admissions between assPD and IHD. The secondary aim is to compare continuation of the dialysis modality and patient survival. Methods: Patients > 65 years, registered in the Swedish Renal Registry (SRR) and starting dialysis 2010–2017 were eligible for inclusion. Patients starting on assPD were matched with patients starting on IHD according to sex, Charlson Index, age and date for start of dialysis. Data were collected from SRR and other registries. Results: During the first year, patients on assPD and IHD had in median one (IQR 0–5.0; 0–4.0) hospitalization (p = 0.412). There was no significant difference after two years, in the annual number of days admitted to hospital, in hospitalizations with cardiovascular or infectious disease diagnoses or continuation of the dialysis modality, respectively. However, patients on assPD had a worse median survival (1.1 years IQR 0.6–2.1; IHD 3.1 years IQR 0.2–5.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this study patients starting assPD, often as a palliative treatment, showed no difference compared to IHD concerning the number of hospitalizations, number of days in hospital/year or continuation of the dialysis modality. Patients on assPD had a worse survival, which is likely due to residual confounding. Without that, patients on assPD would probably have lower number of hospitalizations. Despite limitations due to the retrospective observational design of the study, the results indicate that assPD is a feasible alternative to IHD when self-care dialysis is not possible and/or IHD too arduous.