Challenges and possible solutions to peritoneal dialysis use in Nigeria

Challenges and possible solutions to peritoneal dialysis use in Nigeria

Samuel Ajayi^1,&, Yemi Raji¹, Temitope Bello², Ayodeji Arije¹

¹Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, ²University College Hospital, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

^&Corresponding author
Samuel Ajayi, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Introduction    

Peritoneal dialysis is a form of renal replacement therapy that is both effective and relatively affordable. It is especially useful in patients who have hemodynamic instability in whom haemodialysis may be a challenge. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) was first used in Nigeria in as a treatment option for renal failure. Its use was first reported in Nigeria in 1967 [1] and became more widespread in the 80s and 90s. Mostly used for acute kidney injury in the past, indications soon included treating complications of chronic kidney disease and poisoning PD was ideally suited for treating children with renal failure [2-7], in whom vascular access could be problematic. The most utilized form of peritoneal dialysis was the intermittent form for acute dialysis, usually for patients with acute renal failure. It was easy to do and was usually done in the hospital. Added to this was the fact that it was relatively cheap because there were many vendors marketing consumables. Indeed, in Nigeria peritoneal dialysis and catheter fluids were being manufactured and widely distributed in the past.

Surprisingly, haemodialysis, which is capital intensive to set up and requires infrastructures and facilities such as electricity, intense water consumption and buildings, seems to have upstaged peritoneal dialysis both in demand and supply. In consequence of all these, there was failing interest in marketing peritoneal dialysis consumables, leading to difficulty in procuring PD fluids. In addition, several medical problems associated with its use have made it less popular, the most important being frequent peritoneal infection [3]. Therefore, although we have as many as 30 renal centres in Nigeria, there are only very few centres offering peritoneal dialysis services. Indeed, recent observation suggests its use has dwindled dramatically in the last ten years. This is not happening only in Nigeria, but across Africa in general where it has recently been noted that PD prevalence is 2.2 per million population (pmp) compared with global prevalence of 27pmp [8] and even then 85% of African PD population is in South Africa [8]. This study was undertaken to explore the challenges and possible solutions to the use of peritoneal dialysis in Nigeria. Specific objectives of the study include: assessment of the use of PD for renal failure in Nigeria, identify the possible factors and challenges responsible for the dwindling use, and define the perception of renal health practitioners on the role of PD in renal care with a view to offering solutions for these challenges. A good way forward would be to hear directly from renal care practitioners themselves.

Methods     

This cross-sectional study is a convenient survey of nephrologists, renal technicians and nurses in Nigeria. The advantage of this convenient sampling method [9] was that all professional groupings required for this kind of study were available to participate. This would otherwise have been difficult if we had chosen to mail questions or used an internet-based survey monkey. Such efforts in the past have not yielded adequate results. We used a structured, self-administered questionnaire on a cross-section of members and associate members attending a recent National Nephrology Association meeting. This questionnaire was developed by the authors, taking into considerations the relevant information we sought to gather to explore the challenges and possible solutions to peritoneal dialysis in Nigeria. The main questions of interest included the professional status of respondents, history of use of PD in their centres, training and skills in use of PD, challenges of PD, and re-introduction of PD. The questionnaire was in English language and was pre-tested. A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed to participants who included consultant nephrologists, nephrology trainees, nephrology nurses and nephrology technicians. The questionnaires were anonymized and carried only serial numbers. The questionnaires had multiple responses sections, but as is common in self-administered questionnaires there were incomplete responses as well. Data was first entered into an Excel spread sheet, and then imported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data analysis was done with SPSS version 20 [10]. Group responses were calculated as percentages for comparisons.

Results     

A total of 125 questionnaires were returned. There were 68(54.4%) doctors, 43(27.2%) nurses, and 14(11.2%) renal technicians, all from medical institutions with renal treatment programs who participated in the study (Table 1). In centres where peritoneal dialysis had been used, the common types of peritoneal dialysis were intermittent rigid catheter, intermittent flexible catheter, and CAPD in almost equal proportions, 16%, 19.2% and 17.6% respectively. CCPD has been least utilized as a modality of peritoneal dialysis (8.0%) (Table 2 and Table 3). Majority of the centres were established more than 10 years ago. Fifty-eight (46.4%) respondents indicated that PD had been in use in their centres for renal failure treatment, while the rest claimed it had never been used. The use of PD had ceased in these centres for periods ranging from less than 5 years to more than 10 years (Table 4).

The most common problems encountered with PD use are financial constraints (51.7%), inadequate fluid supply (50%), frequent line blockage (22.4%) and frequent infections (17.2%). Reasons attributed to the stoppage of PD in the centres included lack of PD fluids (50.8%), unavailability of PD catheters (22.8%), lack of expert personnel to train (15.8%). Sixty-five percent of consultant nephrologists strongly agree that peritoneal dialysis training should be mandatory in contrast to 30.6% of nephrology nurses and 27.9% of nephrology trainees, who nonetheless mostly agree that PD should be made mandatory (Table 5). Consultant nephrologists are more likely to see peritoneal dialysis as the only viable option for dialysis than nephrology trainees, nurses and technicians (Table 5).

Discussion     

The use of peritoneal dialysis or indeed any form of dialysis will depend to a large extent on the advocacy, knowledge, and willingness to adopt it by those at the forefront of renal care: doctors, nurses and technicians. They are also the ones who will be in a vantage position to overcome barriers militating against its use [11, 12] Of course, patients' satisfaction, perception, and preference are also very important [13, 14]. This is the rationale for engaging these professionals. Nephrology nurses were in the majority of those interviewed and this reflects their proportion in the membership of the association where they number more than two thirds of about 700 members. Their views also count enormously because they are more in contact with patients than any other health professionals. They are also involved in the training of patients and showing empathy in their interaction with the patients [15].

The first mode of renal replacement therapy in Nigeria was peritoneal dialysis [1], and yet over the years this seems to have been replaced by haemodialysis. Over the years the uptake of patients on peritoneal dialysis programmes has waned. In our survey, 53% of respondents claimed that peritoneal dialysis has not been used for more than ten years. This indeed is the general trend globally, and especially in Africa [2, 16, 17], where haemodialysis has replaced peritoneal dialysis. Reasons adduced for these include high occurrence of infections, unavailability of peritoneal fluids, and lack of marketers for peritoneal dialysis consumables.

With regards to the patient, as in previous reports, the two most common complications are frequent line blockage and peritonitis [3, 18, 19]. Peritonitis adds to the cost of treatment because patients have to be treated for this; it prejudices future treatment with PD and could also be life-threatening. It seems then that most centres were able to cope with this, because when asked specifically the reasons for stopping PD the commonest reasons were lack of fluids (50.8%) and lack of catheters (22.8%). Until about fifteen years ago, there was a company in Nigeria that produced PD fluids, and this was the major source of supply for most centres in Nigeria. With the economic downturn and the decline in the manufacturing sector, this company folded up. In addition, as in other parts of the world [16, 17], there was an increase in the number of haemodialysis centres in Nigeria, and this has indirectly increased the cost of renal replacement therapy in Nigeria [20]

Majority of all four categories of nephrology professionals at least agree that PD should be made mandatory. There is an increasing advocacy to make this the first choice of renal replacement therapy [21-23], because of better survival, flexibility, and lower cost [21]. Thirty eight percent of consultants strongly agree that PD is the only viable option, while at least thirty three percent of nephrology trainees and nurses don't agree that PD is the only viable option. This may reflect a generation gap in practice. Moreover, nephrology consultants, the most experienced in the practice, in strongly agreeing that PD is the only viable option may also have hinted at the need for more training and uptake of patients into the programme, as concluded in a recent review [24].

Conclusion     

Peritoneal dialysis in Nigeria, though rapidly declining in its use, is still perceived as an important option for renal failure treatment, and efforts at its re-integration should be actively pursued. Main obstacles to its use are availability and cost of consumables. Efforts to overcome the factors militating against its use should be positively pursued so that peritoneal dialysis will be re-integrated into the mainstream of renal replacement therapy once more. These will include training and collaboration with all stakeholders, including health authorities.

Competing interests     

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors' contributions     

Dr Samuel Ajayi designed and drafted the manuscript. Dr Yemi Raji Drafted and reviewed the manuscript. Dr Temitope Bello participated in the implementation and review of the manuscript. Professor Ayodeji Arije assisted in the design, implementation and drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Tables     

Table 1: professional status of respondents

Table 2: individual experience with PD use in 125 respondents

Table 3: problems most encountered with PD use (58 respondents)

Table 4: when PD was first used and reasons for stopping PD use (57 respondents)

Table 5: mandatory option and viability of peritoneal dialysis use

References     

1. Akinkugbe O, Abiose A. Peritoneal dialysis in acute renal failure. West Afr Med J. 1967;1:165-8. Google Scholar


2. Ademola AD, Asinobi AO, Ogunkunle OO, Yusuf BN, Ojo OE. Peritoneal dialysis in childhood acute kidney injury: experience in southwest Nigeria. Perit Dial Int. 2012 May-Jun;32(3):267-72. PubMed | Google Scholar


3. Arije A, Akinlade KS, Kadiri S, Akinkugbe OO. The problems of peritoneal dialysis in the management of chronic uraemia in Nigeria. Trop Geogr Med. 1995;47(2):74-7. PubMed | Google Scholar


4. Callegari JG, Kilonzo KG, Yeates KE, Handelman GJ, Finkelstein FO, Kotanko P et al. Peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges faced and lessons learned at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre. Kidney Int. 2012 Feb;81(4):331-3. PubMed | Google Scholar


5. Chan JC, Campbell RA. Peritoneal dialysis in children: a survey of its indications and applications. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1973 Mar;12(3):131-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


6. Faigel HC. Peritoneal dialysis: indications and applications. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1966 Aug;5(8):459-61. PubMed | Google Scholar


7. Lampe W. Indications and technic of intermittent peritoneal dialysis. Med Welt. 1968;37:1963-6. PubMed


8. Abu-Aisha H, Elamin S. Peritoneal dialysis in Africa. Perit Dial Int. 2010 Jan-Feb;30(1):23-8. PubMed | Google Scholar


9. Jager J, Putnick DL, Bornstein MH. II More than just convenient: the scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2017 Jun;82(2):13-30. PubMed | Google Scholar


10. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA).


11. Golper TA, Saxena AB, Piraino B, Teitelbaum I, Burkart J, Finkelstein FO et al. Systematic barriers to the effective delivery of home dialysis in the United States: a report from the Public Policy/Advocacy Committee of the North American Chapter of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011 Dec;58(6):879-85. PubMed | Google Scholar


12. Schober GS, Wenger JB, Lee CC, Oberlander J, Flythe JE. Dialysis Patient Perspectives on CKD Advocacy: a Semistructured Interview Study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017 Jan;69(1):29-40. PubMed | Google Scholar


13. Hartwell L. Understanding Dialysis Patient Perspectives on Advocacy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017 Jan;69(1):5-7. PubMed | Google Scholar


14. Rubin HR, Fink NE, Plantinga LC, Sadler JH, Kliger AS, Powe NR. Patient Ratings of Dialysis Care With Peritoneal Dialysis vs Hemodialysis. JAMA. 2004 Feb 11;291(6):697-703. PubMed | Google Scholar


15. Kimura Y, Inoue T, Suzuki H. Role of nurses in a continuous ambulatory peritoneal diagnosis outpatient clinic. Contrib Nephrol. 2012;177:64-70. PubMed | Google Scholar


16. Blake P. Proliferation of Hemodialysis Units and Declining Peritoneal Dialysis Use: An International Trend. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009 Aug;54(2):194-6. PubMed | Google Scholar


17. Chaudhary K. Peritoneal Dialysis Drop-out: Causes and Prevention Strategies. Int J Nephrol. 2011;2011:434608 PubMed | Google Scholar


18. Alwakeel JS, Alsuwaida A, Askar A, Memon N, Usama S, Alghonaim M et al. Outcome and complications in peritoneal dialysis patients: a five-year single center experience. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2011 Mar;22(2):245-51. PubMed | Google Scholar


19. Anochie IC, Eke FU. Paediatric acute peritoneal dialysis in southern Nigeria. Postgrad Med J. 2006 Mar;82(965):228-30. PubMed | Google Scholar


20. Ajayi S, Raji Y, Bello T, Jinadu L, Salako B. Unaffordability of renal replacement therapy in Nigeria. Hong Kong Journal of Nephrology. 2016;18:15-9. Google Scholar


21. Chaudhary K, Sangha H, Khanna R. Peritoneal Dialysis First: Rationale. 2011;6:447-56. Google Scholar


22. Mehrotra R, Nolph KD. Peritoneal Dialysis Should be the First Choice of Initial Renal Replacement Therapy for More Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease. 2001;47:309-11. Google Scholar


23. Shetty H, Gokal R. Peritoneal dialysis as the first-choice treatment. Contrib Nephrol. 2003;(140):218-25. PubMed | Google Scholar


24. Barsoum RS, Khalil SS, Arogundade FA. Fifty Years of Dialysis in Africa: Challenges and Progress. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Mar;65(3):502-12. PubMed | Google Scholar