Dataset Information

Survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to hemodialysis in the early period of incident dialysis patients: a nationwide prospective propensity-matched study in Korea.

ABSTRACT: The impact of dialysis modality on survival is still somewhat controversial. Given possible differences in patients' characteristics and the cause and rate of death in different countries, the issue needs to be evaluated in Korean cohorts.A nationwide prospective observational cohort study (NCT00931970) was performed to compare survival between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD). A total of 1,060 end-stage renal disease patients in Korea who began dialysis between September 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011 were followed through December 31, 2011.The patients (PD, 30.6%; HD, 69.4%) were followed up for 16.3 ± 7.9 months. PD patients were significantly younger, less likely to be diabetic, with lower body mass index, and larger urinary volume than HD patients. Infection was the most common cause of death. Multivariate Cox regression with the entire cohort revealed that PD tended to be associated with a lower risk of death compared to HD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-1.08]. In propensity score matched pairs (n=278 in each modality), cumulative survival probabilities for PD and HD patients were 96.9% and 94.1% at 12 months (P=0.152) and 94.3% and 87.6% at 24 months (P=0.022), respectively. Patients on PD had a 51% lower risk of death compared to those on HD (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97).PD exhibits superior survival to HD in the early period of dialysis, even after adjusting for differences in the patients' characteristics between the two modalities. Notably, the most common cause of death was infection in this Korean cohort.

SUBMITTER: Choi JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3875495 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to hemodialysis in the early period of incident dialysis patients: a nationwide prospective propensity-matched study in Korea.

Choi Ji-Young JY Jang Hye Min HM Park Jongha J Kim Yon Su YS Kang Shin-Wook SW Yang Chul Woo CW Kim Nam-Ho NH Cho Jang-Hee JH Park Sun-Hee SH Kim Chan-Duck CD Kim Yong-Lim YL

PloS one 20131230 12

<h4>Background</h4>The impact of dialysis modality on survival is still somewhat controversial. Given possible differences in patients' characteristics and the cause and rate of death in different countries, the issue needs to be evaluated in Korean cohorts.<h4>Methods</h4>A nationwide prospective observational cohort study (NCT00931970) was performed to compare survival between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD). A total of 1,060 end-stage renal disease patients in Korea who began d ...[more]

PMID: 24386357

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although numerous studies have tried to elucidate the best dialysis modality in end-stage renal disease patients with diabetes, results were inconsistent and varied with the baseline characteristics of patients. Furthermore, none of the previous studies on diabetic dialysis patients accounted for the impact of glycemic control. We explored whether glycemic control had modifying effect on mortality between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in incident dialysis patients with diabetes. A total of 902 diabetic patients who started dialysis between August 2008 and December 2013 were included from a nationwide prospective cohort in Korea. Based on the interaction analysis between hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and dialysis modalities for patient survival (P for interaction = 0.004), subjects were stratified into good and poor glycemic control groups (HbA1c< or ≥8.0%). Differences in survival rates according to dialysis modalities were ascertained in each glycemic control group after propensity score matching. During a median follow-up duration of 28 months, the relative risk of death was significantly lower in PD compared with HD in the whole cohort and unmatched patients (whole cohort, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01; patients with available HbA1c [n = 773], HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.46-0.91, P = 0.01). In the good glycemic control group, there was a significant survival advantage of PD (HbA1c <8.0%, HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.94, P = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference in survival rates between PD and HD in the poor glycemic control group (HbA1c ≥8.0%, HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.46-2.76, P = 0.80). This study demonstrated that the degree of glycemic control modified the mortality risk between dialysis modalities, suggesting that glycemic control might partly contribute to better survival of PD in incident dialysis patients with diabetes.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveComparisons of outcomes between in-center hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are confounded by selection bias because PD patients are typically younger and healthier and may have received longer predialysis care. We compared first-year survival between what we hypothesized were clinically equivalent groups; namely, patients who initiate maintenance HD using an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and those selecting PD as their initial modality.Study designObservational, registry-based, retrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsUS Renal Data System data for 5 annual cohorts (2010-2014; n = 130,324) of incident HD with an AVF and incident PD patients.Exposures and predictorsExposure was more than 1 day receiving PD or more than 1 day receiving HD with an AVF. Time at risk for both cohorts was determined for 12 consecutive 30-day segments, censoring for transplantation, loss to follow-up, or end of time. Predictors included patient-level characteristics obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2728 Form and other data sources.OutcomesPatient survival.Analytical approachUnadjusted and multivariable risk-adjusted HRs for death of HD versus PD patients, averaged over 2010 to 2014, were calculated.ResultsThe HD cohort's average unadjusted mortality rate was consistently higher than for the PD cohort. The HR of HD versus PD was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.20-1.30) in the unadjusted model and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87) in the adjusted model. However, multivariable risk-adjusted analyses showed the HR of HD versus PD for the first 90 days was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14), decreasing to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80) in the 270- to 360-day period.LimitationsResidual confounding due to selection bias inherent in dialysis modality choice and the observational study design. Form 2728 provides baseline data at dialysis incidence alone, but not over time.ConclusionsUS patients receiving HD with an AVF appear to have a survival advantage over PD patients after 90 days of dialysis initiation after accounting for patient characteristics. These findings have implications in the choice of initial dialysis modality and vascular access for patients.

Project description:Background and objectivesHome dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model.ResultsThe study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality.ConclusionsHome hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vascular calcification is seen in most patients on dialysis and is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality. Vascular calcification is promoted by phosphate, which generally reaches higher levels in hemodialysis than in peritoneal dialysis. However, whether vascular calcification develops less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis is currently unknown. Therefore, we compared coronary artery calcification (CAC), its progression, and calcification biomarkers between patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. METHODS:We measured CAC in 134 patients who had been treated exclusively with hemodialysis (n = 94) or peritoneal dialysis (n = 40) and were transplantation candidates. In 57 of them (34 on hemodialysis and 23 on peritoneal dialysis), we also measured CAC progression annually up to 3 years and the inactive species of desphospho-uncarboxylated matrix Gla protein (dp-ucMGP), fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin. We compared CAC cross-sectionally with Tobit regression. CAC progression was compared in 2 ways: with linear mixed models as the difference in square root transformed volume score per year (?CAC SQRV) and with Tobit mixed models. We adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS:In the cross-sectional cohort, CAC volume scores were 92 mm3 in hemodialysis and 492 mm3 in peritoneal dialysis (adjusted difference 436 mm3; 95% CI -47 to 919; p = 0.08). In the longitudinal cohort, peritoneal dialysis was associated with significantly more CAC progression defined as ?CAC SQRV (adjusted difference 1.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.31; p = 0.03), but not with Tobit mixed models (adjusted difference in CAC score increase per year 106 mm3; 95% CI -140 to 352; p = 0.40). Peritoneal dialysis was associated with higher osteoprotegerin (adjusted p = 0.02) but not with dp-ucMGP or fetuin-A. CONCLUSIONS:Peritoneal dialysis is not associated with less CAC or CAC progression than hemodialysis, and perhaps with even more progression. This indicates that vascular calcification does not develop less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis.

Dataset Information

Survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to hemodialysis in the early period of incident dialysis patients: a nationwide prospective propensity-matched study in Korea.

Publications

Survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to hemodialysis in the early period of incident dialysis patients: a nationwide prospective propensity-matched study in Korea.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets