Remote monitoring in peritoneal dialysis: benefits on clinical outcomes and on quality of life

BACKGROUND: Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) has been proved benefit from remote monitoring (RM), but evidences are limited. In this study, we compared clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in two group of patients undergoing APD, with and without exposure of RM. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study, comparing outcomes in two groups of APD patients monitored during 6 months with RM (group A: n = 35) or standard care (group B: n = 38 patients). In our clinical practice, we assign the RM system to patients who live more distant from the PD center or difficulty in moving. We evaluated emergency visits, hospitalizations, peritonitis, overhydration, and dropout. QoL was assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF). We included four additional questions focused on patient’s perception of monitoring, safety and timely problems solution (Do you think that home-therapy monitoring could interfere with your privacy? Do you think that your dialysis sessions are monitored frequently enough? Do you think that dialysis-related issues are solved timely? Do you feel comfortable carrying out your home-based therapy?). RESULTS: The case group presented a higher comorbidity score, according to Charlson Comorbidity Index (group A: 5.0; IQR 4.0–8.0 versus group B: 4.0; IQR 3.0–6.0) (p = 0.042). The results in group A showed a reduction in the urgent visits due to acute overhydration (group A: 0.17 ± 0.45 versus group B: 0.66 ± 1.36) (p: 0.042) and in the number of disease-specific hospitalization (group A n = 2.0; 18.2% versus group B n = 7.0; 77.8%) (p = 0.022). We did not find any difference between the two groups in terms of hospitalization because of all-cause, peritonitis, overhydration, and dropout. The analysis of KDQOL-SF subscales was similar in the two groups; on the contrary, the answers of our pointed questions have showed a significant difference between the two groups (group A: 100 IQR 87.5–100.0 versus group B 87.5; IQR 75.0–100.0) (p: 0.018). CONCLUSION: RM improved clinical outcomes in PD patients, reducing the emergency visits and the hospitalizations, related to nephrological problems, especially in patients with higher comorbidity score. The acceptance and satisfaction of care were better in patients monitored with RM than with standard APD.