Yang Fan, Khin Lay-Wai, Lau Titus, Chua Horng-Ruey, Vathsala A, Lee Evan, Luo Nan
Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Division of Nephrology, University Medicine Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 7;10(10):e0140195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140195. eCollection 2015.
Studies comparing patient survival of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) have yielded conflicting results and no such study was from South-East Asia. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who started dialysis with HD and PD in Singapore.
Survival data for a maximum of 5 years from a single-center cohort of 871 ESRD patients starting dialysis with HD (n = 641) or PD (n = 230) from 2005-2010 was analyzed using the flexible Royston-Parmar (RP) model. The model was also applied to a subsample of 225 propensity-score-matched patient pairs and subgroups defined by age, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease.
After adjusting for the effect of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, the risk of death was higher in patients initiating dialysis with PD than those initiating dialysis with HD (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-2.59; p<0.001), although there was no significant difference in mortality between the two modalities in the first 12 months of treatment. Consistently, in the matched subsample, patients starting PD had a higher risk of death than those starting HD (HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.30-2.28, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that PD may be similar to or better than HD in survival outcomes among young patients (≤65 years old) without diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
ESRD patients who initiated dialysis with HD experienced better survival outcomes than those who initiated dialysis with PD in Singapore, although survival outcomes may not differ between the two dialysis modalities in young and healthier patients. These findings are potentially confounded by selection bias, as patients were not randomized to the two dialysis modalities in this cohort study.
比较血液透析(HD)和腹膜透析(PD)患者生存率的研究结果相互矛盾,且尚无来自东南亚的此类研究。本研究旨在比较新加坡开始接受HD和PD治疗的终末期肾病(ESRD)患者的生存结局。
使用灵活的Royston-Parmar(RP)模型分析了2005年至2010年在单中心队列中开始接受HD(n = 641)或PD(n = 230)治疗的871例ESRD患者最长5年的生存数据。该模型还应用于225对倾向评分匹配的患者对子以及按年龄、糖尿病和心血管疾病定义的亚组。
在调整了社会人口学和临床特征的影响后,开始接受PD透析的患者死亡风险高于开始接受HD透析的患者(风险比[HR]:2.08;95%置信区间[CI]:1.67 - 2.59;p<0.001),尽管在治疗的前12个月中两种透析方式的死亡率无显著差异。同样,在匹配的亚组中,开始接受PD治疗的患者死亡风险高于开始接受HD治疗的患者(HR:1.73,95% CI:1.30 - 2.28,p<0.001)。亚组分析表明,在无糖尿病或心血管疾病的年轻患者(≤65岁)中,PD的生存结局可能与HD相似或优于HD。
在新加坡,开始接受HD透析的ESRD患者的生存结局优于开始接受PD透析的患者,尽管在年轻且健康状况较好的患者中,两种透析方式的生存结局可能没有差异。由于在这项队列研究中患者并非随机分配至两种透析方式,这些结果可能存在选择偏倚的混淆。