Pajek Jernej, Hutchison Alastair J, Bhutani Shiv, Brenchley Paul E C, Hurst Helen, Perme Maja Pohar, Summers Angela M, Vardhan Anand
Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Slovenia; Manchester Royal Infirmary Renal Unit, Manchester, UK; Manchester Institute of Nephrology and Transplantation, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK; and Institute for Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Perit Dial Int. 2014 May;34(3):289-98. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2012.00248. Epub 2014 Feb 4.
We performed a review of a large incident peritoneal dialysis cohort to establish the impact of current practice and that of switching to hemodialysis.
Patients starting peritoneal dialysis between 2004 and 2010 were included and clinical data at start of dialysis recorded. Competing risk analysis and Cox proportional hazards model with time-varying covariate (technique failure) were used.
Of 286 patients (median age 57 years) followed for a median of 24.2 months, 76 were transplanted and 102 died. Outcome probabilities at 3 and 5 years respectively were 0.69 and 0.53 for patient survival (or transplantation) and 0.33 and 0.42 for technique failure. Peritonitis caused technique failure in 42%, but ultrafiltration failure accounted only for 6.3%. Davies comorbidity grade, creatinine and obesity (but not residual renal function or age) predicted technique failure. Due to peritonitis deaths, technique failure was an independent predictor of death hazard. When successful switch to hemodialysis (surviving more than 60 days after technique failure) and its timing were analyzed, no adverse impact on survival in adjusted analysis was found. However, hemodialysis via central venous line was associated with an elevated death hazard as compared to staying on peritoneal dialysis, or hemodialysis through a fistula (adjusted analysis hazard ratio 1.97 (1.02 - 3.80)).
Once the patients survive the first 60 days after technique failure, the switch to hemodialysis does not adversely affect patient outcomes. The nature of vascular access has a significant impact on outcome after peritoneal dialysis failure.
我们对一个大型腹膜透析队列进行了回顾,以确定当前治疗方式及转为血液透析的影响。
纳入2004年至2010年间开始腹膜透析的患者,并记录透析开始时的临床数据。采用竞争风险分析和带有时间变化协变量(技术失败)的Cox比例风险模型。
在随访的286例患者(中位年龄57岁)中,中位随访时间为24.2个月,76例接受了移植,102例死亡。患者生存(或移植)的3年和5年结局概率分别为0.69和0.53,技术失败的概率分别为0.33和0.42。腹膜炎导致42%的技术失败,但超滤失败仅占6.3%。戴维斯合并症分级、肌酐和肥胖(而非残余肾功能或年龄)可预测技术失败。由于腹膜炎死亡,技术失败是死亡风险的独立预测因素。在分析成功转为血液透析(技术失败后存活超过60天)及其时机时,校正分析未发现对生存有不利影响。然而,与继续进行腹膜透析或通过动静脉内瘘进行血液透析相比,通过中心静脉置管进行血液透析与死亡风险升高相关(校正分析风险比1.97(1.02 - 3.80))。
一旦患者在技术失败后存活60天以上,转为血液透析不会对患者结局产生不利影响。血管通路的性质对腹膜透析失败后的结局有显著影响。