Murphy S W, Foley R N, Barrett B J, Kent G M, Morgan J, Barré P, Campbell P, Fine A, Goldstein M B, Handa S P, Jindal K K, Levin A, Mandin H, Muirhead N, Richardson R M, Parfrey P S
The Division of Nephrology and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Kidney Int. 2000 Apr;57(4):1720-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00017.x.
Comparisons of mortality rates in patients on hemodialysis versus those on peritoneal dialysis have been inconsistent. We hypothesized that comorbidity has an important effect on differential survival in these two groups of patients.
Eight hundred twenty-two consecutive patients at 11 Canadian institutions with irreversible renal failure had an extensive assessment of comorbid illness collected prospectively, immediately prior to starting dialysis therapy. The cohort was assembled between March 1993 and November 1994; vital status was ascertained as of January 1, 1998.
The mean follow-up was 24 months. Thirty-four percent of patients at baseline, 50% at three months, and 51% at six months used peritoneal dialysis. Values for a previously validated comorbidity score were higher for patients on hemodialysis at baseline (4.0 vs. 3.1, P < 0.001), three months (3.7 vs. 3.2, P = 0.001), and six months (3.6 vs. 3.2, P = 0.005). The overall mortality was 41%. The unadjusted peritoneal dialysis/hemodialysis mortality hazard ratios were 0.65 (95% CI, 0. 51 to 0.83, P = 0.0005), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.06, P = NS), and 0. 83 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.08, P = NS) based on the modality of dialysis in use at baseline, three months, and six months, respectively. When adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, cardiac failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, malignancy, and acuity of renal failure, the corresponding hazard ratios were 0.79 (95% CI, 0. 62 to 1.01, P = NS), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.28, P = NS), and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.24, P = NS). Adjustment for a previously validated comorbidity score resulted in hazard ratios of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94, P = 0.01), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.19, P = NS), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.13, P = NS) at baseline, three months, and six months. There was no survival advantage for either modality in any of the major subgroups defined by age, sex, or diabetic status.
The apparent survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis in Canada is due to lower comorbidity and a lower burden of acute onset end-stage renal disease at the inception of dialysis therapy. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, as practiced in Canada in the 1990s, are associated with similar overall survival rates.
血液透析患者与腹膜透析患者死亡率的比较结果并不一致。我们推测合并症对这两组患者的生存差异有重要影响。
加拿大11家机构的822例连续性不可逆肾衰竭患者在开始透析治疗前,前瞻性地收集了关于合并症的广泛评估资料。该队列于1993年3月至1994年11月组建;截至1998年1月1日确定了生存状态。
平均随访24个月。基线时34%的患者、3个月时50%的患者以及6个月时51%的患者采用腹膜透析。在基线(4.0对3.1,P<0.001)、3个月(3.7对3.2,P = 0.001)和6个月(3.6对3.2,P = 0.005)时,先前验证的合并症评分在血液透析患者中更高。总死亡率为41%。基于基线、3个月和6个月时使用的透析方式,未调整的腹膜透析/血液透析死亡率风险比分别为0.65(95%CI,0.51至0.83,P = 0.0005)、0.84(95%CI,0.66至1.06,P = 无显著差异)和0.83(95%CI,0.64至1.08,P = 无显著差异)。在对年龄、性别、糖尿病、心力衰竭、心肌梗死、外周血管疾病、恶性肿瘤和肾衰竭急性程度进行调整后,相应的风险比分别为0.79(95%CI,0.62至1.01,P = 无显著差异)、1.00(95%CI,0.78至1.28,P = 无显著差异)和0.95(95%CI,0.73至1.24,P = 无显著差异)。对先前验证的合并症评分进行调整后,基线、3个月和6个月时的风险比分别为0.74(95%CI,0.58至0.94,P = 0.01)、0.94(95%CI,0.74至1.19,P = 无显著差异)和0.88(95%CI,0.68至1.13,P = 无显著差异)。在按年龄、性别或糖尿病状态定义的任何主要亚组中,两种透析方式均无生存优势。
在加拿大,腹膜透析明显的生存优势归因于合并症较少以及透析治疗开始时急性起病的终末期肾病负担较低。20世纪90年代在加拿大实施的血液透析和腹膜透析的总体生存率相似。