Back
For best output, select "Paper Size" as "A4" and "Margin" as "0" or "None".
To save or print to PDF, please select Print Destination > Save as PDF, enable Background Graphics under "More Settings", then click "Save".
During the congress, E-Posters will be accessible to all participants on the congress website 24/7, as well as in the E-poster stations in the congress center.
Preparing your E-Poster
Please review the E-Poster format requirements carefully when preparing your E-Poster. Should your E-Poster not meet the mentioned requirements, it may not be displayed as described above.
E-Poster Submission Deadline
Please prepare and upload your E-Poster no later than March 14, 2026 11.59PM CET. After this date, you will no longer be able to prepare and upload your E-poster and it will not be displayed and accessible on the congress website.
Please follow the instructions below to input your abstract title.
Abstract titles should be brief and reflect the content of the abstract.
Remote patient management (RPM) technology in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) enables clinicians to access treatment data in real time and may improve patient outcomes. However, large-scale, nationwide real-world evidence comparing RPM-APD with conventional APD remains scarce.
We performed a nationwide, retrospective cohort study using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database from 2016–2023. Patients initiating APD in medical centers during 2016–2018 (conventional APD) were compared with those starting RPM-APD, who were equipped with device for RPM (Sharesource® connectivity platform, Vantive Health LLC), during 2020–2022. After excluding those aged <18 years, with missing demographics, or with <90 days of continuous follow-up, 2,477 patients were analyzed (RPM-APD: 1,258; APD: 1,219). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) based on gradient boosting machine algorithms were used to balance baseline covariates. The primary outcomes were all-cause death and transfer to hemodialysis (HD). Secondary outcomes included peritonitis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and hospitalization burden. Outcomes were assessed throughout the PD duration, from the index date until event occurrence, death, HD transfer, kidney transplantation, or the end of follow-up (December 31, 2020 for APD; December 31, 2023 for RPM-APD).
Among 2,477 patients, the mean age was 53.6 years, 54.5% were male, and the mean follow-up was 2.0 years. In the IPTW-adjusted cohort, RPM-APD was associated with lower risks of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.99; P = 0.037) and HD transfer (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96; P = 0.007). These findings were consistent in the PSM cohort. The risks of peritonitis and MACE were similar between groups, but RPM-APD patients had fewer annual hospitalizations (rate ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.68–0.73; P < 0.001).
In this population-based real-world study, RPM-APD was associated with improved survival, reduced HD transfer, and fewer hospitalizations compared with conventional APD. These findings support the clinical value of remote patient management as an effective strategy to enhance peritoneal dialysis care.
