Bronx, NY, the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was admitted on March 11, 2020. At the height of the pandemic, there were 855 patients with COVID-19 admitted on April 13, 2020. Due to high demand for dialysis and shortages of staff and supplies, we started an urgent peritoneal dialysis (PD) program. From April 1 to April 22, a total of 30 patients were started on PD. Of those 30 patients, 14 died during their hospitalization, 8 were discharged, and 8 were still hospitalized as of May 14, 2020. Although the PD program was successful in its ability to provide much-needed kidney replacement therapy when hemodialysis was not available, challenges to delivering adequate PD dosage included difficulties providing nurse training and availability of supplies. Providing adequate clearance and ultrafiltration for patients in intensive care units was especially difficult due to the high prevalence of a hypercatabolic state, volume overload, and prone positioning. PD was more easily performed in non-critically ill patients outside the intensive care unit. Despite these challenges, we demonstrate that urgent PD is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis in situations with critical resource shortages. Complete author and article information provided before references.

To demonstrate feasibility of acute peritoneal dialysis (PD) for acute kidney injury during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of 94 patients who received acute PD in New York City in the Spring of 2020. Patient comorbidities, severity of disease, laboratory values, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and patient outcomes were recorded. Mean age was 61±11 years; 34% were women; 94% had confirmed COVID-19; 32% required mechanical ventilation on admission. Compared to the levels prior to initiation of KRT, mean serum potassium decreased from 5.1±0.9 to 4.5±0.7 on PD Day 3 and 4.2±0.6 mEq/L on Day 7 (p<0.001 for both); mean serum bicarbonate increased from 20±4 to 21±4 on PD Day 3 (p=0.002) and 24±4 mEq/L on Day 7 (p<0.001). After a median follow up of 30 days, 46% patients died and 22% had renal recovery. Male sex and mechanical ventilation on admission were significant predictors of mortality. The rapid implementation of an acute PD program was feasible despite resource constraints and can be lifesaving during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis associated with COVID-19 led to the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) for the treatment of AKI. This study aims to compare in-hospital all-cause mortality and kidney recovery between patients with AKI who received acute PD versus extracorporeal dialysis (intermittent haemodialysis and continuous kidney replacement therapy). Methods: In a retrospective observational study of 259 patients with AKI requiring dialysis during the COVID-19 surge during Spring 2020 in New York City, we compared 30-day all-cause mortality and kidney recovery between 93 patients who received acute PD at any time point and 166 patients who only received extracorporeal dialysis. Kaplan–Meier curves, log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare survival and logistic regression was used to compare kidney recovery. Results: The mean age was 61 ± 11 years; 31% were women; 96% had confirmed COVID-19 with median follow-up of 21 days. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, oxygenation and laboratory values prior to starting dialysis, the use of PD was associated with a lower mortality rate compared to extracorporeal dialysis with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.27–0.82, p = 0.008). At discharge or on day 30 of hospitalisation, there was no association between dialysis modality and kidney recovery ( p = 0.48). Conclusions: The use of PD for the treatment of AKI was not associated with worse clinical outcomes when compared to extracorporeal dialysis during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. Given the inherent selection biases and residual confounding in our observational study, research with a larger cohort of patients in a more controlled setting is needed to confirm our findings.