Dataset Information

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:As interest for home dialysis is growing, knowledge of comparative clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) would help to better inform shared decision making with patients and caregivers during modality discussion. This study aimed to assess differences in risk of mortality and technique failure in an incident home dialysis cohort and, specifically, to assess change in this association through eras. Methods:All adults patients initiating PD or HHD, in Canada (excluding Quebec), within 365 days after kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation between 2000 and 2013 were included (administrative censoring 31 December 2014). Mortality and treatment failure (transfer to another modality for >90 days or death) were assessed in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, with prespecified stratification based on the year of KRT initiation. Results:The study included 959 HHD and 15,469 PD patients. Compared with incident PD, incident HHD was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.78), and treatment failure (aHR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.45-0.60). These lower risks of mortality with HHD were more pronounced for older cohorts (2000-2005: aHR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.31-0.70; 2006-2010: aHR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.89) and not significantly different in the most recent era (2011-2013: aHR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.51-1.47). Conclusion:In Canadian incident KRT patients, HHD was associated with appreciably lower risks of mortality and treatment failure compared to PD, although this association appeared to be attenuated in the most contemporary era.

SUBMITTER: Nadeau-Fredette AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7609902 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada.

Nadeau-Fredette Annie-Claire AC Tennankore Karthik K KK Perl Jeffrey J Bargman Joanne M JM Johnson David W DW Chan Christopher T CT

Kidney international reports 20200826 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>As interest for home dialysis is growing, knowledge of comparative clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) would help to better inform shared decision making with patients and caregivers during modality discussion. This study aimed to assess differences in risk of mortality and technique failure in an incident home dialysis cohort and, specifically, to assess change in this association through eras.<h4>Methods</h4>All adults patients in ...[more]

PMID: 33163717

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThe last 15 years has seen growth in home hemodialysis (HD) utilization in Canada owing to reports of improved outcomes relative to patients on conventional in-center HD. What effect growth has had on home HD technique and patient survival during this period is not known.Design, settings, participants, & measurementsWe compared the risk of home HD technique failure, mortality, and the composite outcome among three incident cohorts of patients on home HD in Canada: 1996-2002, 2003-2007, and 2008-2012. A multivariable piece-wise exponential model was used to evaluate all outcomes using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights.ResultsA total of 1869 incident patients on home HD were identified from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Relative to those treated between 2003 and 2007 (n=568), the risk of home HD technique failure was similar between patients treated between 1996 and 2002 (n=233; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.78 to 2.46) but higher among incident patients on home HD treated between 2008 and 2012 (n=1068; AHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.15). Relative to patients treated between 2003 and 2007, adjusted mortality was similar among those treated between 2008 and 2012 (AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.19) and those treated between 1996 and 2002 (AHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.21). The risk of the composite outcome of death and technique failure was similar across cohorts, as was the risk of receiving a kidney transplant. Increasing age, diabetes as a comorbidity, and smoking status were associated with an increased risk of death as well as the composite outcome. Medium-sized facilities had a lower risk of death, technique failure, and the composite outcome compared with larger facilities.ConclusionsA higher risk of technique failure was seen in the most contemporary era. Further characterization of the risk factors for, and causes of technique failure is needed to develop strategies to improve patient retention on home HD.

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:Rationale & objectiveThe kidney failure population is growing, necessitating the expansion of dialysis programs. These programs are costly and require a substantial amount of health care resources. Tools that accurately forecast resource use can aid efficient allocation. The objective of this study is to describe the development of an economic simulation model that incorporates treatment history and detailed modality transitions for patients with kidney disease using real-world data to estimate associated costs, utility, and survival by initiating modality.Study designCost-utility model with microsimulation.Setting & populationAdult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Canada who initiated facility-based hemodialysis (HD) or home peritoneal dialysis (PD) between 2004 and 2013.InterventionHD and PD.OutcomesCosts (related to dialysis, transplantation, infections, and hospitalizations), survival, utility, and dialysis modality mix over time.Model perspective & timeframeThe model took the perspective of the health care payer. Patients were followed up for 10 years from initiation of dialysis. Our cost-utility analysis compared the intervention with receiving no treatment.ResultsDuring a 10-year time horizon, the cost-utility ratio for all patients initiating dialysis was $103,779 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison to no treatment. Patients who initiated with facility-based HD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $104,880/QALY and patients who initiated with home PD were treated at a cost-utility ratio of $83,762/QALY. During this time horizon, the total mean cost and QALYs per patient were estimated at $350,774 ± $204,704 and 3.38 ± 2.05) QALYs respectively.LimitationsThe results do not include costs from the societal perspective. Rare patient trajectories were unable to be assessed.ConclusionsThis model demonstrates that patients who initiated dialysis with PD were treated more cost-effectively than those who initiated with HD during a 10-year time horizon.

Project description:Background A significant proportion of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated glomerulonephritis eventually progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) thus requiring long-term dialysis. There is no consensus about which dialysis modality is more recommended for those patients with associated vasculitis (AAV-ESRD). The primary objective of this study was to compare patient survival in patients with AAV-ESRD treated with hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods This double-center retrospective cohort study included dialysis-dependent patients who were treated with HD or PD. Clinical data were collected under standard format. The Birmingham vasculitis activity score (BVAS) was used to evaluate disease activity at diagnosis and organ damage was assessed using the vasculitis damage index (VDI) at dialysis initiation. Results In total, 85 patients were included: 64 with hemodialysis and 21 with peritoneal dialysis. The patients with AAV-PD were much younger than the AAV-HD patients (48 vs. 62, P < 0.01) and more were female (76.2 vs. 51.6%, P = 0.05). The laboratory data were almost similar. The comorbidities, VDI score, and immuno-suppressive therapy at dialysis initiation were almost no statistical difference. Patient survival rates between HD and PD at 1 year were 65.3 vs. 90% (P = 0.062), 3 year were 59.6 vs. 90% (P < 0.001), and 5 years were 59.6 vs. 67.5% (P = 0.569). The overall survival was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.086) and the dialysis modality (HD or PD) was not shown to be an independent predictor for all-cause death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–1.7; P = 0.473). Cardio-cerebrovascular events were the main cause of death among AAV-HD patients while infection in patients with AAV-PD. Conclusion These results provide real-world data that the use of either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis modality does not affect patient survival for patients with AAV-ESRD who need long-term dialysis.

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundDespite clinical and lifestyle advantages of home hemodialysis (HHD) compared with in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), it remains underutilized in our province. The aim of the study was to explore the patients' perception and to identify the barriers to use of HHD in Saskatchewan, Canada.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the study was to evaluate and explore patient perceptions of HHD and to identify the obstacles for adoption of HHD in Saskatchewan. The secondary objective was to examine variations in the patients' perceptions and barriers to HHD by center (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units).DesignThis is a cross-sectional observational survey study.SettingTwo major centers (Regina and Saskatoon) and 5 associated satellite units attached to each center across the province of Saskatchewan.PatientsWe approached all prevalent ICHD patients across Saskatchewan, 398 agreed to participate in the study.MeasurementsSelf-reported barriers to HHD were assessed using a questionnaire.MethodsA questionnaire was designed to determine the patients' perceived barriers to HHD. Descriptive statistics was used to present the data. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the patients' responses between main and satellite units.ResultsSatisfaction with current dialysis care (91%), increase in utility bills (65%), fear of catastrophic events at home (59%), medicalization of one's home (54%), and knowledge deficits toward treatment modalities (54%) were the main barriers to HHD uptake. Compared with patients dialyzing in our main units, satellite patients chose not to pursue HHD more frequently because they had greater satisfaction with their current dialysis unit care (97% vs 87%, P < .001), felt more comfortable dialyzing under the supervision of medical staff (95% vs 86%, P < .007), could not afford additional utility costs (92% vs 45%, P < .001), were unaware of the risks and benefits of HHD (83% vs 33%, P < .001), had concerns over time commitments for training to HHD (69% vs 32%, P < .001), and had concern for family burnout (60.8% vs 40.6%, P < .001).LimitationsWe used questionnaires to quantify known barriers, and this prevents inclusion of additional barriers that individual patients may consider important. Cross-sectional data can only be used as a snapshot. Only 398 patients agreed to participate, and the results cannot be generalized to 740 prevalent HD patients. We did not capture data on demographics (age, income, and literacy level), comorbidities, and dialysis vintage, which would have been helpful in interpretation of the results.ConclusionsSatisfaction with in-center care, lack of awareness and education, specifically in the satellite population, concerns with family burnout, expenses associated with utilities, and training time will need to be addressed to increase the uptake of HHD.Trial registrationThe study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry as it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

Dataset Information

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada.

Publications

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure