Role of automated peritoneal dialysis within a peritoneal dialysis program.

We wished to assess the impact of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) on the peritoneal dialysis (PD) program. From November 1981 to December 1993, 112 patients were started on hemodialysis (HD) as first treatment and 88 on PD [continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): 78, APD: 10]; respective average ages were 61 +/- 14 and 62 +/- 13 years. To December 1985, APD was used as first treatment of PD in 1/29 patients (3.4%), while subsequently, on the basis of a clinical and social-aptitude assessment protocol, it was used in 9/59 patients (15.2%) with PD indication and CAPD contraindications (work: 2 patients, partner required: 7 patients). Of the patients who interrupted CAPD, APD was used in 9/21 patients (reason: social aptitude, 28.6%; clinical, 71.4%). Technique survival after 5 years proved no different in HD versus PD (87% vs 82%, p = NS), whereas in HD versus CAPD it was different (87% vs 62%, p < 0.025). The incidence of peritonitis in APD and CAPD with the Y-set was comparable (1/37 vs 1/40 episode/patient-months), while germ distribution was different (p < 0.001) with Staphylococcus epidermidis prevailing in APD (59%). Based on our experience, APD may extend method acceptance criteria and reduce the technique dropout rate in PD; however, connection technique may need to be improved in order to reduce the risk of peritonitis from exogenous contamination.