Dataset Information

Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Accurate comparisons of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival based on observational studies are difficult due to substantial residual confounding that arises from imbalances between treatments. Propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons confer additional advantages over conventional methods of adjustment by further reducing selection bias between treatments. We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared mortality between in-centre HD with PD using a PSM-based approach.

Methods: A sensitive search strategy identified all citations in the PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases from inception through November 2018. Pooled PD versus HD mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-regression explored factors to account for between-study variation.

Results: The systematic review yielded 214 citations with 17 cohort studies and 113?578 PSM incident dialysis patients. Cohort periods spanned the period 1993-2014. The pooled HR for PD versus HD was 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.14). There was considerable variation by country, however, mortality risks for PD versus HD remained virtually unchanged when stratified by geographical region with HRs of 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.15), 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32) and 0.98 (0.87-1.10) for European, Asian and American cohorts, respectively. Subgroup meta-analyses revealed similar risks for patients with diabetes [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.98-1.21)] and without diabetes [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.09)]. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2?=?87%) and was largely accounted for by differences in cohort period, study type and country of origin. Together these factors explained a substantial degree of between-studies variance (R2?=?90.6%).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that PD and in-centre HD carry equivalent survival benefits. Reported differences in survival between treatments largely reflect a combination of factors that are unrelated to clinical efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Elsayed ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7716812 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Elsayed Mohamed E ME Morris Adam D AD Li Xia X Browne Leonard D LD Stack Austin G AG

Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association 20201201 12

<h4>Background</h4>Accurate comparisons of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival based on observational studies are difficult due to substantial residual confounding that arises from imbalances between treatments. Propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons confer additional advantages over conventional methods of adjustment by further reducing selection bias between treatments. We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared mortality between in-centre HD with PD us ...[more]

PMID: 31981353

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD), characterised by 8-hour sessions??3?times a week, is known to improve clinical parameters in the short term compared with conventional-schedule haemodialysis (HD), generally 3×3.5-4?hours a week. We studied long-term effects of NHD and used patients on conventional HD/haemodiafiltration (HDF) as controls. DESIGN:Four-year prospective follow-up of patients who switched to NHD; we compared patients with patients on HD/HDF using propensity score matching. SETTING:28 Dutch dialysis centres. PARTICIPANTS:We included 159 patients starting with NHD any time since 2004, aged 56.7±12.9 years, with median dialysis vintage 2.3 (0.9-5.1) years. We propensity-score matched 100 patients on NHD to 100 on HD/HDF. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Control of hypertension (predialysis blood pressure, number of antihypertensives), phosphate (phosphate, number of phosphate binders), nutritional status and inflammation (albumin, C reactive protein and postdialysis weight) and anaemia (erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) resistance). RESULTS:Switching to NHD was associated with a non-significant reduction of antihypertensives compared with HD/HDF (OR <2 types 2.17, 95%?CI 0.86 to 5.50, P=0.11); and a prolonged lower need for phosphate binders (OR <2 types 1.83, 95%?CI 1.10 to 3.03, P=0.02). NHD was not associated with significant changes in blood pressure or phosphate. NHD was associated with significantly higher albumin over time compared with HD/HDF (0.70?g/L/year, 95%?CI 0.10 to 1.30, P=0.02). ESA resistance decreased significantly in NHD compared with HD/HDF, resulting in a 33% lower ESA dose in the long term. CONCLUSIONS:After switching to NHD, the lower need for antihypertensives, phosphate binders and ESA persists for at least 4 years. These sustained improvements in NHD contrast significantly with the course of these parameters during continued treatment with conventional-schedule HD and HDF. NHD provides an optimal form of dialysis, also suitable for patients expected to have a long waiting time for transplantation or those convicted to indefinite dialysis.

Project description:Background Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICDs). No meta-analyses synthesizing data from high-quality studies have yet been published. Methods and Results An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score-matched studies comparing S-ICD against TV-ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device-related complications and lead-related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all-cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random-effects meta-analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan-Meier curves of device-related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1-stage meta-analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S-ICD versus TV-ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S-ICD had a similar rate of device-related complications compared with TV-ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33-1.04]; P=0.070), but a significantly lower lead-related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.29]; P<0.0001). The individual patient data-based 1-stage stratified Cox model for device-related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared-frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61-1.09]; P=0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan-Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S-ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities. Conclusions S-ICD is clinically superior to TV-ICD in terms of lead-related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device-related complications, S-ICD may be beneficial over TV-ICD in the long term. These indicate that S-ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV-ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Dataset Information

Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets