Suppr超能文献

老年患者首次使用的血液透析通路类型与死亡率之间的关联。

Association between initial type of hemodialysis access used in the elderly and mortality.

作者信息

DeSilva Ranil N, Sandhu Gurprataap S, Garg Jalaj, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev Alexander S

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

出版信息

Hemodial Int. 2012 Apr;16(2):233-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2011.00661.x.

Abstract

We hypothesized that certain subpopulations (elderly and those with greater comorbidity) may not have significant benefit from "fistula first" initiative. A cohort of incident hemodialysis patients from 2005 to 2007, who were ≥70 years old, was derived from the United States Renal Data System. Primary variable of interest was type of vascular access used at first outpatient hemodialysis (i.e., fistula, graft, or central catheter), with primary outcome of all-cause mortality (time to death measured from the first outpatient hemodialysis). A cohort of 82,202 patients was stratified by age (70 to ≤80, 81 to ≤90, and >90). Each group demonstrated a survival benefit with the use of an arterio-venous fistula compared with catheter (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [P < 0.001], HR 0.55 [P < 0.001], and HR 0.69 [P = 0.007], respectively). Comparing graft to with a catheter, both groups, 70 to ≤80 and 81 to ≤90, had significant benefit compared with catheter (HR 0.73, P < 0.001 and HR 0.74, P < 0.001, respectively). However, significance was lost in those ≥90 (HR 0.83, P = 0.354). When substratified by comorbidity, those 81 to ≤90 years old with a history of malignancy or peripheral vascular disease also did not reach significant benefit compared with a catheter (HR 0.88, P = 0.423 and HR 0.85, P = 0.221, respectively). While specific subgroups in the hemodialysis population exist where use of fistulas and grafts at time of dialysis initiation is not of proven statistical benefit to survival, elderly hemodialysis patients with comorbidities still appear to benefit from the use of fistulas and grafts.

摘要

我们推测某些亚群(老年人以及合并症较多的人群)可能无法从“内瘘优先”倡议中获得显著益处。2005年至2007年来自美国肾脏数据系统的一组年龄≥70岁的新发血液透析患者。主要关注变量是首次门诊血液透析时使用的血管通路类型(即内瘘、移植物或中心静脉导管),主要结局是全因死亡率(从首次门诊血液透析开始测量的死亡时间)。一组82202名患者按年龄分层(70至≤80岁、81至≤90岁和>90岁)。与导管相比,每组使用动静脉内瘘均显示出生存获益(风险比[HR]分别为0.56[P<0.001]、0.55[P<0.001]和0.69[P = 0.007])。将移植物与导管进行比较,70至≤80岁和81至≤90岁这两组与导管相比均有显著获益(HR分别为0.73,P<0.001和HR 0.74,P<0.001)。然而,在≥90岁的人群中这种显著性消失了(HR 0.83,P = 0.354)。当按合并症分层时,81至≤90岁有恶性肿瘤或外周血管疾病史的患者与导管相比也未达到显著获益(HR分别为0.88,P = 0.423和HR 0.85,P = 0.221)。虽然在血液透析人群中存在特定亚群,在透析开始时使用内瘘和移植物对生存没有经证实的统计学益处,但合并症的老年血液透析患者似乎仍能从使用内瘘和移植物中获益。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验