Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Effectiveness Of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade On Residual Kidney Function And Peritoneal Membrane Function In Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

Sirayut Phatthanasobhon, Surapon Nochaiwong, Kednapa Thavorn, Kajohnsak Noppakun, Setthapon Panyathong, Yuttitham Suteeka, Brian Hutton, Manish M. Sood, Greg A. Knoll, Chidchanok Ruengorn

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy Visualize in Litmaps
Share
Reduce the time it takes to create your bibliography by a factor of 10 by using the world’s favourite reference manager
Time to take this seriously.
Get Citationsy
AbstractWe performed a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies in adult peritoneal dialysis patients to evaluate the effects of specific renin-angiotensin aldosterone systems (RAAS) blockade classes on residual kidney function and peritoneal membrane function. Key outcome parameters included the following: residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR), urine volume, anuria, dialysate-to-plasma creatinine ratio (D/P Cr), and acceptability of treatment. Indirect treatment effects were compared using random-effects model. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odd ratios (ORs) were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We identified 10 RCTs (n = 484) and 10 non-randomised studies (n = 3,305). Regarding changes in rGFR, RAAS blockade with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) were more efficacious than active control (SMD 0.55 [0.06–1.04] and 0.62 [0.19–1.04], respectively) with the protective effect on rGFR observed only after usage ≥12 months, and no differences among ACEIs and ARBs. Compared with active control, only ACEIs showed a significantly decreased risk of anuria (OR 0.62 [0.41–0.95]). No difference among treatments for urine volume and acceptability of treatment were observed, whereas evidence for D/P Cr is inconclusive. The small number of randomised studies and differences in outcome definitions used may limit the quality of the evidence.