Peritoneal Dialysis Connectology

  • N. V. Dombros
  • V. Liakopoulos

Conventionally, term connectology refers to the body of available information and accumulated experience on the various systems of transfer sets, connecting devices, etc., that are used during the process of peritoneal dialysis (PD). This chapter will cover connectology as it refers to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), with only a brief discussion of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD). Acute peritoneal dialysis is not discussed.


Peritoneal Dialysis Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Automate Peritoneal Dialysis Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Patient Peritonitis Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ganter G. About the elimination of poisonous substances from the blood by dialysis. Munch Med Wchnschr 1923; 70: 1478–1480.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kolff WJ. New Ways of Treating Uremia. London: JA Churchill Ltd, 1947.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frank H, Seligman A, Fine J. Treatment of uremia after acute renal failure by peritoneal irrigation. JAMA 1946; 130:703–705.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grollman A, Turner LB, McLean J. Intermittent peritoneal lavage in nephrectomized dogs and its application to the human being. Arch Intern Med 1951; 87: 379–390.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maxwell MH, Rockney RE, Kleeman CR. Peritoneal dialysis, techniques and application. JAMA 1959; 170: 917–924.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boen ST, Mion CM, Curtis FK, et al. Periodic peritoneal dialysis using repeated puncture technique and automatic cycling machine. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1964; 10: 409–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palmer RA, Quinton WE, Gray JE. Prolonged peritoneal dialysis for chronic renal failure. Lancet 1964; 1: 700–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tenckhoff H, Meston B, Shilipetar G. A simplified automatic peritoneal dialysis system. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1972; 17: 436–439.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lasker N, McCauley EP, Passarotti CT. Chronic peritoneal dialysis. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1966; 12: 94–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Popovich RP, Moncrief JW, Decherd JF, et al. The definition of a novel portable/wearable equilibrium peritoneal dialysis technique. Trans Am Soc Intern Artif Organs (Abstr) 1976; 5: 64.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popovich PR, Monchrief JW, Nolph KD, et al. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Ann Intern Med 1978; 88: 449–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oreopoulos DG, Robson M, Izatt S, et al. A simple and safe technique for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1978; 24: 484–489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oreopoulos DG. Peritoneal dialysis is here to stay. Nephron 1979; 24: 7–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buoncristiani U, Bianchi P, Cozzari M. A new safe, simple connection system for CAPD. Nephrol Urol Androl 1980; 1: 50.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonnardeaux A, Ouimet D, Galarneau A, et al. Peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: impact of a compulsory switch from a standard to a Y-connector system in a single North American Center. Am J Kidney Dis 1992; 19: 364–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bailie GR, Rasmussen R, Eisele G, et al. Peritonitis rates in CAPD patients using the UVXD and O-set systems. Ren Fail 1993; 15: 225–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheng IK, Chan CY, Cheng SW, et al. A randomized prospective study of the cost-effectiveness of the conventional spike, O-set, and UVXD techniques in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 1994; 14: 255–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bazzato G, Landini S, Coli U, et al. A new technique of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): double-bag system for freedom to the patient and significant reduction of peritonitis. Clin Nephrol 1980; 13: 251–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viglino G, Colombo A, Cantu P, et al. In vitro and in vivo efficacy of a new connector device for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 1993; 13 Suppl 2: S148–S151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryckelynck JP, Verger C, Cam G, Fallert B, Pierrett D. Importance of the flush effect in disconnect systems. Adv Perit Dial 1988; 4: 282–284.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kubey W, Straka P, Holmes CJ. Importance of product design on effective bacterial removal by fluid convection in Y set and twinbag systems. Blood Purif 1998; 16: 154–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Straka P, Kubey W, Luneburg P, et al. The “flush” procedure of twin bag systems. Perit Dial Int 1995; 15: 390–392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kubey W, Straka P, Holmes CJ. An in vitro bacterial touch contamination risk assessment of two CAPD twinbag systems. Blood Purif 2001; 19: 62–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buoncristiani U, Buoncristiani E, Bianchi P. Use of sodium hypochlorite in peritoneal dialysis: the genesis of the 'y'set and beyond. Contrib Nephrol 2007; 154: 103–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piraino B, Bailie GR, Bernardini J, et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2005 update. Perit Dial Int 2005; 25: 107–131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Junor BJ. CAPD disconnect systems. Blood Purif 1989; 7: 156–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jethon FU, Weber-Fursicht I, Steudle V, et al. Peritonitis prevention by eliminating the risk factor disconnection. Contrib Nephrol 1991; 89: 53–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nolph KD, Prowant B, Serkes KD, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the effects of an ultraviolet germicidal system on peritonitis rate in CAPD. Perit Dial Bull 1985; 5: 19–24.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nakamura Y, Hara Y, Ishida H, et al. A randomized multicenter trial to evaluate the effects of UV-Flash system on peritonitis rates in CAPD. Adv Perit Dial 1992; 8: 313–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kubey W, Holmes CJ. In vitro studies on the microbicidal effectiveness of a xenon-based ultraviolet light device for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis connections. Blood Purif 1991; 9: 102–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ota K. Clinical experience in CAPD using Flame lock device. In: Maher JF and Winchester JF (eds), Frontiers in Peritoneal Dialysis. New York: Field and Rich, 1986, pp. 161–165.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olivas E, Jimenez C, Lopez A, et al. Reduction of the incidence of peritonitis in CAPD: effectiveness of heat sterilization of Safe. Lock connectors. Contrib Nephrol 1991; 89: 62–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lafleur D, Cordy P, Gallimore B, et al. Peritonitis rates for CAPD patients using the SCD 210 (Inpersol sterile connecting device): a Canadian survey. Adv Perit Dial 1991; 7: 196–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sharp J, Coulthard M. A heat–sealing device to disconnect peritoneal dialysis lines. Perit Dial Bull 1988; 8: 269–271.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fessia SL, Grabowy RS, Bousquet GG. Effectiveness of microwave moist-heat intraluminal disinfection of CAPD connectology. Adv Perit Dial 1991; 7: 204–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grabowy RS, Kelley R, Richter SG, et al. New connection method for isolating and disinfecting intraluminal path during peritoneal dialysis solution-exchange procedures. Adv Perit Dial 1998; 14: 149–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maiorca R, Cantaluppi A, Cancarini GC, et al. Prospective controlled trial of a Y-connector and disinfectant to prevent peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Lancet 1983; 2: 642–644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rottembourg J, Brouard R, Issad B, et al. Prevention of peritonitis during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Value of disconnectable systems. Presse Med 1988; 17: 1349–1353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lindholm T, Simonsen O, Krutzen L, van Leusen R. Evaluation of a new take-off system: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Adv Perit Dial 1988; 4: 264–265.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anonymous. Peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): a multi-centre randomized clinical trial comparing the Y connector disinfectant system to standard systems. Canadian CAPD Clinical Trials Group. Perit Dial Int 1989; 9: 159–163.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Owen JE, Walker RG, Lemon J, et al. Randomized study of peritonitis with conventional versus O-set techniques in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 1992; 12: 216–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li PK, Chan TH, So WY, et al. Comparisons of Y-set disconnect system (Ultraset) versus conventional spike system in uremic patients on CAPD: outcome and cost analysis. Perit Dial Int 1996; 16 Suppl 1: S368–S370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monteon F, Correa-Rotter R, Paniagua R, et al. Prevention of peritonitis with disconnect systems in CAPD: a randomized controlled trial. The Mexican Nephrology Collaborative Study Group. Kidney Int 1998; 54: 2123–2128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Swartz R, Reynolds J, Lees P, et al. Disconnect during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): retrospective experience with three different systems. Perit Dial Int 1989; 9: 175–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scalamogna A, De Vecchi A, Castelnovo C, et al. Long-term incidence of peritonitis in CAPD patients treated by the Y set technique: experience in a single center. Nephron 1990; 55: 24–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Port FK, Held PJ, Nolph KD, et al. Risk of peritonitis and technique failure by CAPD connection technique: a national study. Kidney Int 1992; 42: 967–974.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Holley JL, Bernardini J, Piraino B. Infecting organisms in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients on the Y-set. Am J Kidney Dis 1994; 23: 569–573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Viglino G, Colombo A, Scalamogna A, et al. Prospected randomized study of two Y devices in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int 1989; 9: 165–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Honkanen E, Kala AR, Gronhagen-Riska C. Divergent etiologies of CAPD peritonitis in integrated double bag and traditional systems? Adv Perit Dial 1991; 7: 129–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dryden MS, McCann M, Wing AJ, et al. Controlled trial of a Y-set dialysis delivery system to prevent peritonitis in patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J Hosp Infect 1992; 20: 185–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rubin JE, Marquardt E, Pierre M, et al. Improved training techniques and UltraBag system resulted in lowered peritonitis rate in an inner-city population. Adv Perit Dial 1995; 11: 208–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kiernan L, Kliger A, Gorban-Brennan N, et al. Comparison of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis-related infections with different "Y-tubing" exchange systems. J Am Soc Nephrol 1995; 5: 1835–1838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Harris DC, Yuill EJ, Byth K, et al. Twin- versus single-bag disconnect systems: infection rates and cost of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996; 7: 2392–2398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li PK, Szeto CC, Law MC, et al. Comparison of double-bag and Y-set disconnect systems in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a randomized prospective multicenter study. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 535–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Daly CD, Campbell MK, MacLeod AM, et al. Do the Y-set and double-bag systems reduce the incidence of CAPD peritonitis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 341–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Strippoli GF, Tong A, Johnson D, et al. Catheter-related interventions to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15: 2735–2746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li PK, Law MC, Chow KM, et al. Comparison of clinical outcome and ease of handling in two double-bag systems in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 40: 373–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wong HS, Ong LM, Lim TO, et al. A randomized, multicenter, open-label trial to determine peritonitis rate, product defect, and technique survival between ANDY-Disc and UltraBag in patients on CAPD. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 48: 464–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Burkart JM, Hylander B, Durnell-Figel T, et al. Comparison of peritonitis rates during long-term use of standard spike versus Ultraset in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int 1990; 10: 41–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mujais S. Microbiology and outcomes of peritonitis in North America. Kidney Int Suppl 2006; (103): S55–S62.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vas SI. Infections of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheters. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1989; 3: 301–328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lewis J, Abbott J, Crompton K, et al. CAPD disconnect systems: UK peritonitis experience. Adv Perit Dial 1992; 8: 306–312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tofte-Jensen P, Klem S, Nielsen PK, et al. PD-related infections of standard and different disconnect systems. Adv Perit Dial 1994; 10: 214–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Burkart JM, Jordan JR, Durnell TA, et al. Comparison of exit-site infections in disconnect versus nondisconnect systems for peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 1992; 12: 317–320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ballocchi S, Orazi E, Montanaro D, et al. Two years of experience with a new device system: a multicenter study. Adv Perit Dial 1995; 11: 160–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tarchini R, Segoloni GP, Gentile MG, et al. Long-term results of CAPD in Italy: a report from the Italian CAPD Study Group. Clin Nephrol 1988; 30 Suppl 1: S68–S70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dasgupta MK, Fox S, Gagnon D, et al. Significant reduction of peritonitis rate by the use of Twin-bag system in a Canadian regional CAPD program. Adv Perit Dial 1992; 8: 223–226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Garcia-Lopez E, Mendoza-Guevara L, Morales A, et al. Comparison of peritonitis rates in children on CAPD with spike connector versus two disconnect systems. Adv Perit Dial 1994; 10: 300–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Golper TA, Brier ME, Bunke M, et al. Risk factors for peritonitis in long-term peritoneal dialysis: the Network 9 peritonitis and catheter survival studies. Academic Subcommittee of the Steering Committee of the Network 9 Peritonitis and Catheter Survival Studies. Am J Kidney Dis 1996; 28: 428–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    de Fijter CW, Oe LP, Nauta JJ, et al. Clinical efficacy and morbidity associated with continuous cyclic compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 264–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bro S, Bjorner JB, Tofte-Jensen P, et al. A prospective, randomized multicenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int 1999; 19: 526–533.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rodriguez-Carmona A, Perez Fontan M, Garcia Falcon T, et al. A comparative analysis on the incidence of peritonitis and exit-site infection in CAPD and automated peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 1999; 19: 253–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gahrmani N, Gorban-Brennan N, Kliger AS, et al. Infection rates in end-stage renal disease patients treated with CCPD and CAPD using the UltraBag system. Adv Perit Dial 1995; 11: 164–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Basile C, De Padova F. Comparison of peritonitis incidence in CAPD and automated peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 1957–1958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Troidle LK, Gorban-Brennan N, Kliger AS, et al. Continuous cycler therapy, manual peritoneal dialysis therapy, and peritonitis. Adv Perit Dial 1998; 14: 137–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Huang JW, Hung KY, Yen CJ, et al. Comparison of infectious complications in peritoneal dialysis patients using either a twin-bag system or automated peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16: 604–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Renal Association. Treatment of Adults and Children with Renal Failure: Standards and Audit Measures. 3rd Edition. London: Royal College of Physicians of London and the Renal Association, 2002.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Anonymous. The CARI guidelines. Evidence for peritonitis treatment and prophylaxis: the influence of peritoneal dialysis systems and solutions on the incidence of peritonitis and catheter-related infections. Nephrology (Carlton) 2004; 9 Suppl 3: S41–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, et al. European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. 4 Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis delivery systems. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005; 20 Suppl 9: ix13–ix15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Anonymous. NKF-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis adequacy. National Kidney Foundation. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 30: S67–S136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bargman JM, Bick J, Cartier P, et al. Guidelines for adequacy and nutrition in peritoneal dialysis. Canadian Society of Nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999; 10 Suppl 13: S311–S321.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professor of Internal Medicine/Nephrology, Medical SchoolAristotle University of ThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations