Outcomes of peritoneal dialysis in cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
08968608
eISSN
17184304
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85193460523
Pubmed ID
38757682
Journal Title
Peritoneal Dialysis International
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Peritoneal Dialysis International (2024)
Suggested Citation
Mekraksakit P., Suppadungsuk S., Thongprayoon C., Miao J., Leelaviwat N., Thongpiya J., Qureshi F., Craici I.M., Cheungpasitporn W. Outcomes of peritoneal dialysis in cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Peritoneal Dialysis International (2024). doi:10.1177/08968608241237401 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/98481
Title
Outcomes of peritoneal dialysis in cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Cirrhosis and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are significant global health concerns, contributing to high mortality and morbidity. Haemodialysis (HD) is frequently used to treat ESKD in patients with cirrhosis. However, it often presents challenges such as haemodynamic instability during dialysis sessions, leading to less than optimal outcomes. Peritoneal dialysis (PD), while less commonly used in cirrhotic patients, raises concerns about the risks of peritonitis and mortality. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess outcomes in PD patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We executed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases up to 25 September 2023. The search focused on identifying studies examining mortality and other clinical outcomes in ESKD patients with cirrhosis receiving PD or HD. In addition, we sought studies comparing PD outcomes in cirrhosis patients to those without cirrhosis. Data from each study were aggregated using a random-effects model and the inverse-variance method. Results: Our meta-analysis included a total of 13 studies with 15,089 patients. Seven studies compared ESKD patients on PD with liver cirrhosis (2753 patients) against non-cirrhosis patients (9579 patients). The other six studies provided data on PD (824 patients) versus HD (1943 patients) in patients with cirrhosis and ESKD. The analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality between PD and HD in ESKD patients with cirrhosis (pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–1.14). In PD patients with cirrhosis, the pooled OR for peritonitis compared to non-cirrhosis patients was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.03–1.18). The pooled ORs for hernia and chronic hypotension in cirrhosis patients compared to non-cirrhosis controls were 2.48 (95% CI: 0.08–73.04) and 17.50 (95% CI: 1.90–161.11), respectively. The pooled OR for transitioning from PD to HD among cirrhotic patients was 1.71 (95% CI: 0.76–3.85). Mortality in cirrhosis patients on PD was comparable to non-cirrhosis controls, with a pooled OR of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.53–2.10). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that PD provides comparable mortality outcomes to HD in ESKD patients with cirrhosis. In addition, the presence of cirrhosis does not significantly elevate the risk of mortality among patients undergoing PD. While there is a higher incidence of chronic hypotension and a slightly increased risk of peritonitis in cirrhosis patients on PD compared to those without cirrhosis, the risks of hernia and the need to transition from PD to HD are comparable between both groups. These findings suggest PD as a viable and effective treatment option for ESKD patients with cirrhosis.