Dataset Information

Similar survival on home haemodialysis and automated peritoneal dialysis: an inception cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several studies have shown superior survival of patients on home haemodialysis (HD) compared with peritoneal dialysis (PD), but patients on automated PD (APD) and continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) have not been considered separately. As APD allows larger fluid volumes and may be more efficient than CAPD, we primarily compared patient survival between APD and home HD.

Methods

All adult patients who started kidney replacement therapy (KRT) between 2004 and 2017 in the district of Helsinki-Uusimaa in Finland and who were on one of the home dialysis modalities at 90 days from starting KRT were included. We used intention-to-treat analysis. Survival of home HD, APD and CAPD patients was studied using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression with adjustment for propensity scores that were based on extensive data on possible confounding factors.

Results

The probability of surviving 5 years was 90% for home HD, 88% for APD and 56% for CAPD patients. After adjustment for propensity scores, the hazard ratio of death was 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-2.4] for APD and 1.6 (95% CI 0.74-3.6) for CAPD compared with home HD. Censoring at the time of kidney transplantation (KTx) or at transfer to in-centre HD did not change the results. Characteristics of home HD and APD patients at the start of dialysis were similar, whereas patients on CAPD had higher median age and more comorbidities and received KTx less frequently.

Conclusions

Home HD and APD patients had comparable characteristics and their survival appeared similar.

SUBMITTER: Bitar W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317172 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionThe impact of peritoneal dialysis modality on patient survival and peritonitis rates is not fully understood, and no large-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) is available. In the absence of a RCT, the use of an advanced matching procedure to reduce selection bias in large cohort studies may be the best approach. The aim of this study is to compare automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) according to peritonitis risk, technique failure and patient survival in a large nation-wide PD cohort.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study that included all incident PD patients with at least 90 days of PD recruited in the BRAZPD study. All patients who were treated exclusively with either APD or CAPD were matched for 15 different covariates using a propensity score calculated with the nearest neighbor method. Clinical outcomes analyzed were overall mortality, technique failure and time to first peritonitis. For all analysis we also adjusted the curves for the presence of competing risks with the Fine and Gray analysis.ResultsAfter the matching procedure, 2,890 patients were included in the analysis (1,445 in each group). Baseline characteristics were similar for all covariates including: age, diabetes, BMI, Center-experience, coronary artery disease, cancer, literacy, hypertension, race, previous HD, gender, pre-dialysis care, family income, peripheral artery disease and year of starting PD. Mortality rate was higher in CAPD patients (SHR1.44 CI95%1.21-1.71) compared to APD, but no difference was observed for technique failure (SHR0.83 CI95%0.69-1.02) nor for time till the first peritonitis episode (SHR0.96 CI95%0.93-1.11).ConclusionIn the first large PD cohort study with groups balanced for several covariates using propensity score matching, PD modality was not associated with differences in neither time to first peritonitis nor in technique failure. Nevertheless, patient survival was significantly better in APD patients.