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

BACKGROUND: 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.

Sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration for diabetic nephropathy patients with acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, safety and cost of treating patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and diabetic nephropathy (DN) with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration with hemofiltration (SLEDD-f). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with AKI/DN from January 2006 to December 2012 were reviewed. Fifty-five patients who received CRRT and 52 who received SLEDD-f were included in the study. CRRT and SLEDD-f were performed for 20-72 h per session and 8-10 h per session, respectively. Mortality and renal function recovery rates were evaluated 30 days after the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and APACHE-II and SOFA scores, anticoagulant dose, inflammatory indices and cost were calculated at baseline and at the end of RRT. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients treated with CRRT, 49 (89.1%) had a 30-day survival rate and 30 (54.5%) had a 30-day renal recovery rate. Of the 52 patients with SLEDD-f, these rates were 92.3% (n = 48) and 61.5% (n = 32), respectively. The dosage of low-molecular-weight heparin in the CRRT and SLEDD-f groups was 15,230 ± 1,460 and 6,320 ± 490 U/day, respectively. The cost of hemopurification and the total cost for patients treated with CRRT was CNY 28,628 ± 5,576 (USD 4,210 ± 820) and CNY 38,828 ± 6,324 (USD 5,710 ± 930), respectively. These were higher than those for patients treated with SLEDD-f at CNY 13,260 ± 1,564 (USD 1,950 ± 230) and CNY 19,720 ± 2,652 (USD 2,900 ± 390), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SLEDD-f offered a similar chance of renal recovery and also had further advantages such as a lower heparin dosage, a shorter therapy time and lower hospitalization costs for patients than CRRT. Studies with larger, randomized sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Diagnostic value of phospholipase A2 receptor in idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Detection of M-type phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) can be used in serologic diagnosis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN), but there are limited data about the sensitivity and specificity of its diagnostic values. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies assessing the values of PLA2R in diagnosis of IMN. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and congress abstracts were searched for studies reporting the value of PLA2R to predict IMN. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the guidelines of the updated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The results are summarized as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (OR). Data from 10 studies involving 1,550 participants were analyzed. Across all settings, the diagnostic OR for serum anti-PLA2R level to predict IMN at different stages was 247.41, with sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.99. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of serum anti-PLA2R level for diagnosis of IMN in the active stage were 74.0 and 95.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 54.22. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of biopsy anti-PLA2R for diagnosis of IMN at different stages was 73.0 and 83.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 13.75. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that serum anti-PLA2R level is of diagnostic value for IMN in the active stage. Future large-cohort prospective studies are required to reveal the diagnostic value of circulating anti-PLA2R antibodies versus PLA2R antigens in kidney biopsy for IMN at different stages.