Acute Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients with Renal Failure: Saviour or Succourer
Benoy Varghese1, Arul Rajagopalan1, Jegan Arunachalam1, *, Arun Prasath1, Rakesh Durai1
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2022
E-location ID: e1874303X2203290
Publisher ID: e1874303X2203290
Article History:Received Date: 09/11/2021
Revision Received Date: 3/12/2021
Acceptance Date: 18/1/2022
Electronic publication date: 31/05/2022
Collection year: 2022
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in critically ill patients with renal failure, with many requiring renal replacement therapies. Unfortunately, many of them are too critically ill to tolerate intermittent hemodialysis. In the setting of limited resources, we did bedside acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis for critically ill COVID-19 patients with hemodynamic instability with or without ventilator support admitted to our intensive care unit.
The aim of the study was to determine the outcome of intermittent peritoneal dialysis in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
Our retrospective observational study included 91 patients with critically ill SARS-CoV2 infection and renal failure admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital from July 2020 to September 2021, who underwent acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis.
The demographic, laboratory, and treatment parameters were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Variables, like increased mean age (49.88 vs. 59.07 years), presence of diabetes mellitus (36.4% vs. 63.8%), increased lung involvement (57.3% vs. 75.0%), mechanical ventilation (15.2% vs. 70.7%), systolic (84.3 vs. 77.5 mm of Hg) and diastolic (59.09 vs. 42.93 mm of Hg) blood pressures, were associated with poor outcomes. The use of hypertonic PD (63.6% vs. 37.9%), better urea reduction ratios (44.33 vs. 39.84), and increased PD cycles (66.52 vs. 44.26) were associated with a better outcome. Complications, like haemorrhage and peritonitis, occurred in 10.9%.
PD is a cost-effective bedside RRT that can be considered an effective option in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Good urea clearance, hemodynamic stability, and minimal resource requirements are also the features that favour peritoneal dialysis.