The Impact of a Pre-Dialysis Educational Program on the Mode of Renal Replacement Therapy in a Saudi Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 12; no. 12; p. e11981
• Main Authors: Alghamdi, Ahlam A, Almotairy, Khalid A, Aljoaid, Roqaya Moeedh, Al Turkistani, Nedaa Anwar, Domyati, Rawan Walid, Morsy Abdelrahman, Morsy Mohamed, Samer Shobain, Kholod, Uys, Cathariena M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus 08.12.2020
• Subjects: Epidemiology/Public Health; Medical Education; Nephrology; hemodialysis; peritoneal dialysis; pre-dialysis education; end-stage renal disease
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.11981

Background Self-care and peritoneal dialysis (PD) benefits have been underutilized in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The pre-dialysis education program (PDEP) has been generally introduced as an acceptable tool in increasing the rates of PD and has been reportedly recommended for ESRD patients as part of the introduced care. We aim to study the effect of PDEP on ESRD and whether they would prefer PD of center-based hemodialysis (HD). Methods This is a retrospective cohort study that was done at King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in the dialysis center. Data were collected on patients and included demographics, preference of renal replacement therapy modality, and other possible factors that may affect patient choices such as educational level, economic status, and age. Results A total of 213 ESRD patients that met our criteria were included, with a total of 75 patients receiving PDEP. Out of those who received the PDEP, 57.3% and 42.7% of patients decided to perform HD and PD, respectively. There was a significant impact of PDEP on reducing HD choice [OR (95% CI) = 0.11 (0.05-0.24); P-value < 0.001]. Infections did not occur in 50.5% of the included patients while 45.8%, 3.3%, and 0.5% had central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), other infections, and peritonitis, respectively. Most of the PD patients (81.8%) did not have an infection as compared to 42.3% of the HD patients. HD was also associated with increased admission days [OR (95% CI) = 1.27 (1.07-1.51); P-value = 0.007]. Conclusion We found that PDEP positively impacted the rate of PD while PD was associated with favorable outcomes and lower infection rates, emphasizing the importance of an educational program.