We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), on all-cause mortality (ACM) and PD failure. Studies were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Weipu and Wanfang databases from database inception until April 1, 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to pool outcome estimates. Seventeen studies (more than 230,000 patients) were included. Our meta-analysis showed that compared with CAPD, APD demonstrated a significantly lower ACM risk (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77–0.99], p = 0.04), especially in studies involving an as-treated analysis (HR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63–0.90], p = 0.00), published in Asia (HR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67–0.86], p < 0.001) or Europe (HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74–0.89], p < 0.00), or published after 2012 (HR 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68–0.99], p = 0.04). However, APD was as effective as CAPD for PD survival (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.00], p = 0.05 or HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35], p = 0.61). Our results demonstrate a significant survival benefit for APD and provide evidence for increasing the global use of APD, especially in developing nations, where APD use has been hampered by a lack of reimbursement for care.
LiyanageTNinomiyaTJhaV, et al.Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet2015; 385: 1975–1982.
2.
BrownEAJohanssonLFarringtonK, et al.Broadening options for long-term dialysis in the elderly (BOLDE): differences in quality of life on peritoneal dialysis compared to haemodialysis for older patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant2010; 25: 3755–3763.
3.
PikeEHamidiVRingerikeT, et al.More use of peritoneal dialysis gives significant savings: a systematic review and health economic decision model. J Clin Med Res2017; 9: 104–116.
4.
MarshallMRHsiaoCYLiPK, et al.Association of incident dialysis modality with mortality: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Syst Rev2019; 8: 55.
5.
JainAKBlakePCordyP, et al.Global trends in rates of peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol2012; 23: 533–544.
6.
De FijterCWOeLPNautaJJ, et al.Clinical efficacy and morbidity associated with continuous cyclic compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Ann Intern Med1994; 120: 264–271.
7.
BroSBjornerJBTofte-JensenP, et al.A prospective, randomized multicenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int1999; 19: 526–533.
8.
Iles-SmithHCurwellJGokalR. Comparative evaluation of CAPD and PD-plus effectiveness. EDTNA/ERCA J1999; 25: 27–29.
9.
RabindranathKSAdamsJAliTZ, et al.Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant2007; 22: 2991–2998.
10.
BadveSVHawleyCMMcDonaldSP, et al.Automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis have similar outcomes. Kidney Int2008; 73: 480–488.
11.
MichelsWMVerduijnMBoeschotenEW, et al.Similar survival on automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in a large prospective cohort. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2009; 4: 943–949.
12.
MehrotraRChiuYWKalantar-ZadehK, et al.The outcomes of continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis are similar. Kidney Int2009; 76: 97–107.
13.
CnossenTTUsvyatLKotankoP, et al.Comparison of outcomes on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis: results from a USA database. Perit Dial Int2011; 31: 679–684.
14.
GuoAMujaisS. Patient and technique survival on peritoneal dialysis in the United States: evaluation in large incident cohorts. Kidney Int Suppl2003; (88): S3–S12.
15.
SanchezARMadoniaCRascon-PachecoRA. Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in a Mexican PD Center. Kidney Int Suppl2008; (108): S76–S80.
16.
SeeEJJohnsonDWHawleyCM, et al.Risk predictors and causes of technique failure within the first year of peritoneal dialysis: an Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) study. Am J Kidney Dis2018; 72: 188–197.
17.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al.The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928.
18.
NieZQOuYQQuYJ, et al.[A new perspective of survival data on clinical epidemiology: Introduction of competitive risk model]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi2017; 38: 1127–1131.
19.
LoCKMertzDLoebM. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol2014; 14: 45.
20.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
21.
HigginsJPTThompsonSGDeeksJJ, et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003; 327: 557–560.
22.
BeggCBMazumdarM. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics1994; 50: 1088–1101.
23.
EggerMDavey SmithGSchneiderM, et al.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed.)1997; 315: 629–634.
24.
KatavetinPTheerasinYTreamtrakanponW, et al.Treatment failure in automated peritoneal dialysis and double-bag continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Nephrology (Carlton)2013; 18: 545–548.
25.
LiXXuHChenN, et al.The effect of automated versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis on mortality risk in China. Perit Dial Int2018; 38: S25–S35.
26.
SunCYLeeCCLinYY, et al.In younger dialysis patients, automated peritoneal dialysis is associated with better long-term patient and technique survival than is continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int2011; 31: 301–307.
27.
WangIKLuCYMuoCH, et al.Analysis of technique and patient survival over time in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Int Urol Nephrol2016; 48: 1177–1185.
28.
WangIKYuTMYenTH, et al.Comparison of patient survival and technique survival between continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and automated peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int2020; 40: 563–572.
29.
PengXYWangHYLiY, et al.Survival analysis in automated peritoneal dialysis patients. Chin J Nephrol2017, 33: 738–744.
30.
BalasubramanianGMcKittyKFanSL. Comparing automated peritoneal dialysis with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: survival and quality of life differences?Nephrol Dial Transplant2011; 26: 1702–1708.
31.
GuilloteauSLobbedezTGuillouëtS, et al.Impact of assisted peritoneal dialysis modality on outcomes: a cohort study of the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry. Am J Nephrol2018; 48: 425–433.
32.
PajekJHutchisonAJBhutaniS, et al.Outcomes of peritoneal dialysis patients and switching to hemodialysis: a competing risks analysis. Perit Dial Int2014; 34: 289–298.
33.
Remón-RodríguezCQuirós-GangaPPortolés-PérezJ, et al.[Results of the cooperative study of Spanish peritoneal dialysis registries: analysis of 12 years of follow-up]. Nefrologia2014; 34: 18–33.
34.
de MoraesTPFigueiredoAEDe CamposLG, et al.Characterization of the BRAZPD II cohort and description of trends in peritoneal dialysis outcome across time periods. Perit Dial Int2014; 34: 714–723.
35.
de OliveiraMPKusumotaLHaasVJ, et al.Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Rev Lat Am Enferm2016; 24: e2687.
36.
MujaisSStoryK. Peritoneal dialysis in the US: evaluation of outcomes in contemporary cohorts. Kidney Int Suppl2006; (103): S21–S26.
37.
JohnsonDWHawleyCMMcDonaldSP, et al.Superior survival of high transporters treated with automated versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant2010; 25: 1973–1979.
38.
El-ReshaidWAl-DisawyHNassefH, et al.Comparison of peritonitis rates and patient survival in automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a 10-year single center experience. Ren Fail2016; 38: 1187–1192.
39.
KwanBCChowKMMaTK, et al.Automated peritoneal dialysis in Hong Kong: there are two distinct groups of patients. Nephrology (Carlton)2013; 18: 356–364.
40.
TangCHChenTHFangTC, et al.Do automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis have the same clinical outcomes? A ten-year cohort study in Taiwan. Sci Rep2016; 6: 29276.
41.
LeeKOParkSJKimJH, et al.Outcomes of peritonitis in children on peritoneal dialysis: a 25-year experience at severance hospital. Yonsei Med J2013; 54: 983–989.
42.
ElootSVanholderRDequidtC, et al.Removal of different classes of uremic toxins in APD vs CAPD: a randomized cross-over study. Perit Dial Int2015; 35: 436–442.
43.
MichelsWMVerduijnMGrootendorstDC, et al.Decline in residual renal function in automated compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2011; 6: 537–542.
44.
Pérez FontánMRemón RodríguezCBorràs SansM, et al.Compared decline of residual kidney function in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a multicenter study. Nephron Clin Pract2014; 128: 352–360.
45.
LiaoCTChenYMShiaoCC, et al.Rate of decline of residual renal function is associated with all-cause mortality and technique failure in patients on long-term peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant2009; 24: 2909–2914.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
