Safety, Effectiveness, and Manipulability of Peritoneal Dialysis Machines Made in China: A Randomized, Crossover, Multicenter Clinical Study

BACKGROUND: Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) can cater to individual needs, provide treatment while asleep, take into account the adequacy of dialysis, and improve the quality of life. Currently, independent research and development of APD machines made in China are more conducive to patients. A randomized, multicenter, crossover study was conducted by comparing an APD machine made in China with an imported machine. The safety, effectiveness, and manipulability of the two machines were compared. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) on a regular basis in 18 centers between August 2015 and February 2016 were included. The inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years and PD ≥30 days. The exclusion criteria were as follows: hemodialysis; exit site or tunnel infection; and peritonitis ≤30 days. The patients were randomly divided into Group A, who were first treated with a FM machine made in China, then changed to an imported machine; and Group B, who were treated using the reverse sequence. APD treatment was performed with 10 L/10 h and 5 cycles of exchange. After 72 h, the daily peritoneal Kt/V, the accuracy of the injection rate, accuracy of the injection temperature, safety, and manipulability of the machine were assessed. Noninferiority test was conducted between the two groups. RESULTS: The daily peritoneal Kt/V in the APD machine made in China and the imported APD machine were 0.17 (0.14, 0.25) and 0.16 (0.13, 0.23), respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups (Z = 0.15, P = 0.703). The lower limit of the daily Kt/V difference between the two groups was 0.0069, which was greater than the noninferiority value of −0.07 in this study. The accuracy of the injection rate and injection temperature was 89.7% and 91.5%, respectively, in the domestic APD machine, which were both slightly better than the accuracy rates of 84.0% and 86.8% in the imported APD machine (89.7% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.2466; 91.5% vs. 86.8%, P = 0.0954). Therefore, the APD machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. The fuselage of the imported APD machine was space-saving, while the APD machine made in China was superior with respect to body mobility, man-machine dialog operation, alarm control, and patient information recognition. CONCLUSIONS: The FM machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. In addition, the FM machine made in China had better operability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02525497; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02525497&cntry=& state=&city=&dist=.