Home About us Current issue Ahead of Print Back issues Submission Instructions Advertise Contact Login   

Search Article 
Advanced search 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
Users online: 3073 Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 574-582
Effectiveness of a Separate Training Center for Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

1 Saudi Center for Organ Transplantation, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 King Khaled University Hospital and Dalla Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 King Fahd Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
5 Riyadh Medical Complex, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
6 Baxter Renal Education Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Muhammad Ziad Souqiyyeh
Saudi Center for Organ Transplantation, P.O. Box 27049, Riyadh 11417
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 18580016

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

The aim of this study is to analyze the patients' database of the Baxter's Training Peritoneal Dialysis Program (BTPDP) adopted at the Baxter Renal Education Center (BREC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in order to determine its effectiveness in the management, compliance, and outcome of the trained peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. The study analyzes the database of the BTPDP, which includes the demographic data, duration of follow-up, complications, and outcome of the patients trained on PD between September 2003 and November 2007. Records of 376 patients with a mean age of 46.0 22.6 years were available in the database for analysis. Of them, 187 (49.7%) were males, 312 (82.9%) were trained at the BREC, 315 (83.8%) were new PD patients, and 298 (79.3%) were trained on automated PD (APD). The dropouts during the study period included 172 patients (46%); 42 (24.4%) were transplanted, 45 (26.2%) switched to hemodialysis, 57 (33.1%) died and 28 (16.3%) were lost to follow-up. A comparison was made between the group trained at the BREC and the group trained at the hospital. There was an overwhelming adoption of BTPDP by the different hospitals during the study period (p < 0.00001). There were 264 (84.6%) patients trained on APD at the BREC vs. 34 (53.1%) at the hospital (p < 0.00001), and the patients trained at the BREC had significantly less dropouts than those trained at the hospital during the study period 135 (43.3%) vs. 38 (59.4%) respectively (p < 0.02). The mean period of follow-up was significantly different between the patients trained at the BREC and those trained at the referring hospital (390 461 days vs. 679 779 days respectively (p < 00000.8). Also, there was a trend for better technique survival after the second year, among the patients trained at the BREC. We conclude that the BREC model has increased the recruitment to PD, and helped in spreading this method of renal replacement therapy among patients. This model emphasizes the role of a designated training course by an expert team, and unifies the training standards. Furthermore, application of this model can be expanded nationwide and even to other countries.

Print this article  Email this article

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded537    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal