A randomized prospective study of the cost-effectiveness of the conventional spike, O-set, and UVXD techniques in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of three techniques for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): the conventional spike technique (C), the O-set (O), and UVXD (U, ultraviolet irradiation connection box). Design: A randomized and prospective comparison of three CAPD techniques. Setting: A tertiary referral and a satellite dialysis center. Patients: One hundred patients with end-stage renal failure between 10 and 70 years of age, with good hand-eye coordination and not anticipated to receive a living related transplant within 6 months. Interventions: Patients were randomized by referral to a table of random numbers to perform one of the three CAPD techniques. Main Outcome Measures: Training time, details of peritonitis and exit-site infection (ESI) including the costs of antibiotic treatment, outpatient visits, hospital stays, technique, and patient survival were analyzed after a minimum follow-up period of one year. Results: There were 38, 31, and 31 patients in groups C, O, and U, respectively, and the total observation periods were 838, 802, and 745 patient-months, respectively. The peritonitis rates for C, O, and U were 21.5, 30.8, and 29.8 patient-months/episode, respectively. The corresponding ESI rates were 16.4, 14.9, and 24 patient-months/episode, respectively. When the time from the commencement of CAPD to the first infection was expressed using the Kaplan-Meier life table analysis, 39.5%, 67.7%, and 61.3% of patients in Groups C, O, and U were free from peritonitis at one year (p = 0.088). The corresponding figures for ESI were 52.6%, 48.4%, and 61.3% (p = 0.35). There was no significant difference in technique survival in the three treatment groups. An analysis of the costs related to the use of antibiotics, outpatient visits, and hospital stays necessary for the treatment of peritonitis and ESI and those related to training time, additional equipment, and consumables required for the three CAPD techniques showed that, overall, the cost in O was the lowest, followed by U and C (U.S. $158, $170, and $179 per patient-month, respectively). Conclusion: It was concluded that the O-set is a more cost-effective CAPD technique than UVXD, while both are more cost-effective than the conventional spike technique.