Suppr超能文献

透析方式、血管通路和终末期肾病的死亡率:一项基于两国登记的队列研究。

Dialysis modality, vascular access and mortality in end-stage kidney disease: A bi-national registry-based cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

ANZDATA Registry, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

出版信息

Nephrology (Carlton). 2016 Oct;21(10):878-86. doi: 10.1111/nep.12688.

Abstract

AIM

There remains debate on which dialysis modality offers better survival outcomes for patients. We compare the survival of patients undergoing home haemodialysis (HD) with a permanent vascular access, facility HD with a permanent vascular access, facility HD with a central venous catheter or peritoneal dialysis.

METHODS

We considered adult patients from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry who commenced dialysis between 1 October 2003 and 31 December 2011. Patients were followed until death, transplant, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2011. Marginal structural models for mortality were used to account for time-varying treatment, comorbidities and baseline covariates. Unmeasured differences between treatment groups may remain even after adjustment for measured differences, so the potential effects of unmeasured confounding were explicitly modelled.

RESULTS

There were 20,191 patients who underwent ≥90 days of dialysis (median 2.25 years, interquartile range 1-3.75 years). There were significant differences in age, gender, comorbidities and other variables between treatment groups at baseline. Thirty per cent of patients had at least one treatment change. Relative to facility HD with permanent access, the risk of death for home HD patients with a permanent access was lower in the first year (at 9 months: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.67, adjusted for all baseline covariates). Findings were robust to unmeasured confounding within plausible ranges.

CONCLUSION

Relative to facility HD with permanent vascular access, home HD conferred better survival prospects, while peritoneal dialysis was associated with a higher risk and facility HD with a catheter the highest risk, especially within the first year of dialysis.

摘要

目的

对于哪种透析方式能为患者带来更好的生存结果,目前仍存在争议。我们比较了使用永久性血管通路进行家庭血液透析(HD)、使用永久性血管通路进行中心血液透析、使用中央静脉导管进行中心血液透析或腹膜透析的患者的生存率。

方法

我们考虑了澳大利亚和新西兰透析和移植登记处 2003 年 10 月 1 日至 2011 年 12 月 31 日期间开始透析的成年患者。患者随访至死亡、移植、失访或 2011 年 12 月 31 日。使用死亡率的边缘结构模型来解释随时间变化的治疗、合并症和基线协变量。即使在调整了可测量的差异后,治疗组之间可能仍然存在未测量的差异,因此明确地对未测量的混杂因素的潜在影响进行了建模。

结果

有 20191 名患者接受了≥90 天的透析(中位数为 2.25 年,四分位间距为 1-3.75 年)。在基线时,各组患者在年龄、性别、合并症和其他变量方面存在显著差异。30%的患者至少有一次治疗方案改变。与使用永久性血管通路的中心 HD 相比,使用永久性通路的家庭 HD 患者在第一年的死亡风险较低(9 个月时:危险比 0.41,95%CI 0.25-0.67,所有基线协变量均调整后)。在合理范围内,未测量的混杂因素对结果没有影响。

结论

与使用永久性血管通路的中心 HD 相比,家庭 HD 提供了更好的生存前景,而腹膜透析与更高的风险相关,使用中央静脉导管进行中心 HD 的风险最高,尤其是在透析的第一年。

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