Survival of patients who opt for dialysis versus conservative care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with kidney failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at comparing survival outcomes between dialysis and CC in studies where patients made an explicit treatment choice.Methods
Five databases were systematically searched from origin through 25 February 2021 for studies comparing survival outcomes among patients choosing dialysis versus CC. Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates were extracted and meta-analysis performed where applicable. Risk of bias analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions.Results
A total of 22 cohort studies were included covering 21 344 patients. Most studies were prone to selection bias and confounding. Patients opting for dialysis were generally younger and had fewer comorbid conditions, fewer functional impairments and less frailty than patients who chose CC. The unadjusted median survival from treatment decision or an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 ranged from 20 and 67 months for dialysis and 6 and 31 months for CC. Meta-analysis of 12 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality showed a pooled adjusted HR of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57) for patients choosing dialysis compared with CC. In subgroups of patients with older age or severe comorbidities, the reduction of mortality risk remained statistically significant, although analyses were unadjusted.Conclusions
Patients opting for dialysis have an overall lower mortality risk compared with patients opting for CC. However, a high risk of bias and heterogeneous reporting preclude definitive conclusions and results cannot be translated to an individual level.
SUBMITTER: Voorend CGN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317173 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in 366 patients aged ≥70 years with advanced CKD, who chose dialysis (n = 240) or conservative care (n = 126) after careful counselling by a multidisciplinary team in a non-academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Using a value-based health care approach (value = outcomes/cost): survival, health-related quality of life-cross-sectionally assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™-treatment burden, and treatment costs were evaluated. RESULTS:The overall survival benefit of patients on a dialysis pathway compared with patients on conservative care diminished or lost significance in patients aged ≥80 years or with severe comorbidity. There were no differences between patients managed conservatively and dialysis patients on physical and mental health summary scores (all P > 0.1). Patients on conservative care had 352.7 hospital free days per year versus 282.7 in patients on a dialysis pathway, calculated from treatment decision (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.21, P < 0.001). Annual treatment costs were lower in patients on conservative care (adjusted cost ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.67, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this study, conservative care is shown to be a viable treatment option in older patients with advanced CKD, particularly in the oldest old and those with severe comorbidity. By achieving similar outcomes at lower treatment burden and treatment costs, value was generated for older patients choosing conservative care and society.
| S-EPMC6097302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have valvular heart disease requiring surgery. The optimal prosthetic valve is not established in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess outcomes of patients with dialysis-dependent ESKD who received mechanical or bioprosthetic valves.MethodsWe searched Cochrane Central, Medline and Embase from inception to January 2020. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias and data collection, independently and in duplicate. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsWe identified 28 observational studies (n = 9857 patients, including 6680 with mechanical valves and 3717 with bioprosthetic valves) with a median follow-up of 3.45 years. Twenty-two studies were at high risk of bias and 1 was at critical risk of bias from confounding. Certainty in evidence was very low for all outcomes except bleeding. Mechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.97, I 2 = 0, absolute effect 27 fewer deaths per 1000) and at 6 or more years (mean 9.7 yr, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96, I 2 = 79%, absolute effect 145 fewer deaths per 1000), but increased bleeding (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.41-4.27, I 2 = 59%, absolute effect 91 more events per 1000) and stroke (IRR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21-2.20, I 2 = 0%, absolute effect 25 more events per 1000).ConclusionMechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality, but increased rate of bleeding and stroke. Given very low certainty for evidence of mortality and stroke outcomes, patients and clinicians may choose prosthetic valves based on factors such as bleeding risk and valve longevity.Study registrationPROSPERO no. CRD42017081863.
| S-EPMC9293484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease.DesignSystematic review.Main outcome measuresPain, function, adverse events.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016.Eligibility criteriaFor effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence.ResultsWe included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy.ConclusionsOver the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42016046242.
| S-EPMC5541494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHome-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.PatientsAdult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.MeasurementsWe analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.MethodsRandom effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsTwenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.LimitationsLack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.
| S-EPMC8593295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Elderly patients represent a growing population among people suffering from ESRD. So far only limited data on actual survival benefits of elderly adults initiating dialysis have been published. Besides the high burden of preexisting comorbidities, dialysis treatment itself may be associated with a further deterioration in functional status in this population. We retrospectively analyzed the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry and identified 8,622 patients who started maintenance hemodialysis after the age of 65 years between 2002 and 2009. We compared this data set to a cohort of 174 patients aged over 65 years with CKD stage 5 who progressed to an eGFR < 10ml/min/ and were managed conservatively in the same era. All patients who died of malignant disease were excluded from this analysis. The risk of mortality was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Furthermore, a parametric model of time to event analysis was used for visualization of changing risk over time and precise calculation of time to equal risk assuming a Weibull distribution. Hemodialysis treatment was associated with a decreased risk for death with a HR of 0.23 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.29; p<0.001) compared to conservative treatment. The time to event analysis however showed, that although survival was initially superior in the hemodialysis group, hazards crossed thereafter. Time to equal risk was 2.9 months and 1.9 months for female and male patient aged 65, respectively, and decreased to one month in the very elderly aged 95. Elderly patients with ERSD did benefit from initiation of hemodialysis, as the conservative group showed a very high initial mortality rate. This survival benefit of dialysis treatment however did not persist beyond the first two months compared to survivors of the conservative group.
| S-EPMC5524398 | biostudies-other
Project description:Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious infection and causes significant morbidity and mortality. However, the benefit of surgery for endocarditis besides antibiotic treatment in dialysis patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review of studies published between 1960 and February 2022. Meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model to explore the in-hospital, 30, 60, 90, 180-d, and 1-year mortality rates in adult dialysis patients with IE. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE system. Thirteen studies were included. The pooled odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.28, p = .17), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 62%, p < .01). Three studies reported 30-d mortality, and the pooled odds ratio for surgery compared with medical treatment was even lower (0.36; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61, p < .01), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = .86). With studies on fewer than 30 patients excluded, the sensitivity analysis revealed a low odds ratio of in-hospital mortality for surgery versus medical treatment (0.52; 95% CI: 0.27-0.99, p = .047), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 63%, p < .01). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between any two comparator subgroups. Based on a very low strength of evidence, compared with medical treatment, surgical treatment for IE in patients on dialysis is not associated with lower in-hospital mortality. When studies on fewer than 30 patients were excluded, surgical treatment was associated with better survival.
| S-EPMC9037223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: The optimal antiplatelet therapy for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on chronic dialysis presenting with acute or chronic coronary syndromes (ACS or CCS) remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety endpoints of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in ESKD patients requiring dialysis and presenting with ACS or CCS. (2) Methods: Studies were included comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in ESKD patients on chronic dialysis with ACS or CCS. The primary composite efficacy outcome was a combination of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The primary safety outcome was major and non-major bleeding events. (3) Results: Five observational studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the primary composite efficacy outcome between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (p = 0.40). Similarly, the 2 groups had no significant differences in all-cause mortality (p = 0.82) or cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.79). Ticagrelor did not show a significantly different risk of coronary revascularization (p = 0.35) or recurrent myocardial infarction (p = 0.41) compared to clopidogrel. Also, the risk of stroke was similar (p = 0.21). The 2 groups had no significant difference in the primary composite safety outcome (p = 0.22) or major bleeding events (p = 0.27). (4) Conclusions: In ESKD patients on chronic dialysis with ACS or CCS, there was no significant difference in efficacy or safety outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimal antiplatelet therapy in this population.
| S-EPMC10419464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Initiating dialysis therapy in elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a challenging decision. We aimed to examine the mortality rates among elderly patients who underwent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or comprehensive conservative care. This retrospective cohort study included elderly patients (≥70 years) with ESKD who selected their treatment options from January 2008 to December 2018. Patients were categorized into three groups: hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and comprehensive conservative care. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality analyzed using flexible parametric survival models. Propensity score analysis with inverse probability treatment weighting technique was performed, incorporating age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The study included 719 elderly ESKD patients with mean age of 78.2 ± 4.9 years, 52.3% were male, and 60.1% died during the median follow-up period of 22.1 months. In a fully adjusted model, patients receiving comprehensive conservative care (n = 50) had higher mortality rates than those receiving hemodialysis (n = 317) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 5.60; 95% CI 2.26-13.84, p < 0.001). However, patients who received peritoneal dialysis (n = 352) had a similar mortality rate when compared to those who received hemodialysis (adjusted HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.78-2.44, p = 0.275). The higher mortality rate in the comprehensive conservative care group remained significantly higher than in the hemodialysis group among patients aged ≥80 years (adjusted HR 4.97; 95% CI 1.32-18.80, p = 0.018). Among elderly patients (≥70 years), treatment with dialysis was associated with longer survival rates. This survival advantage persisted in patients aged ≥80 years who chose hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis over comprehensive conservative care.
| S-EPMC11370684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether suturing or conservative management of tongue lacerations results in differences in wound healing and functional outcome. The secondary aim was to identify whether antibiotics are required in the treatment of tongue lacerations.MethodsStudies published between December 1954 and August 2020 were extracted from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and evaluated for inclusion based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThe search yielded a total of 16,111 articles, 124 of which were evaluated by full-text review, resulting in 11 articles included in this systematic review representing 142 unique cases of tongue lacerations. At least 26 lacerations (18.3%) included penetration of the muscle layer of the tongue, and 24 (16.9%) were classified as full-thickness lacerations. Thirty-five of the 142 tongue lacerations (24.6%) were sutured. The remaining lacerations underwent some form of conservative management. The majority of studies reported excellent healing of tongue lacerations regardless of the management method, with minimal scarring and excellent return to normal functional status. No cases of infection were reported.ConclusionsCurrent literature is inconsistent with regards to indications and guidelines for primary repair of tongue lacerations. The majority of tongue lacerations reported in the literature heal with excellent outcomes regardless of management method. Physician judgement along with patient and parental preference based on potential risks of the procedure should be used when deciding whether a tongue laceration requires primary repair. Tongue lacerations in otherwise healthy individuals are at very low risk of infection.
| S-EPMC8900692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewImproving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches.Recent findingsThere remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested). We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I2 = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I2 = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I2 = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3-21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.
| S-EPMC9508204 | biostudies-literature