Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Medicine, Headwaters Health Care Center, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Mar;71(3):344-351. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.08.028. Epub 2017 Nov 22.
Although peritoneal dialysis (PD) costs less to the health care system compared to in-center hemodialysis (HD), it is an underused therapy. Neither modality has been consistently shown to confer a clear benefit to patient survival. A key limitation of prior research is that study patients were not restricted to those eligible for both therapies.
Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients developing end-stage renal disease from January 2004 to December 2013 at any of 7 regional dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, who had received at least 1 outpatient dialysis treatment and had completed a multidisciplinary modality assessment.
HD or PD.
Mortality from any cause.
Among all incident patients with end-stage renal disease (1,579 HD and 453 PD), PD was associated with lower risk for death among patients younger than 65 years. However, after excluding approximately one-third of all incident patients deemed to be ineligible for PD, the modalities were associated with similar survival regardless of age. This finding was also observed in analyses that were restricted to patients initiating dialysis therapy electively as outpatients. The impact of modality on survival did not vary over time.
The determination of PD eligibility was based on the judgment of the multidisciplinary team at each dialysis center.
HD and PD are associated with similar mortality among incident dialysis patients who are eligible for both modalities. The effect of modality on survival does not appear to change over time. Future comparisons of dialysis modality should be restricted to individuals who are deemed eligible for both modalities to reflect the outcomes of patients who have the opportunity to choose between HD and PD in clinical practice.
与中心血液透析(HD)相比,腹膜透析(PD)的医疗费用更低,但它的应用却不足。两种治疗方式都没有明显改善患者的生存获益。先前研究的一个主要局限性是,研究患者不受限于两种治疗方式都有资格接受的患者。
回顾性队列研究。
2004 年 1 月至 2013 年 12 月期间,在加拿大安大略省的 7 个区域透析中心中,任何一个中心的所有成年终末期肾病患者,这些患者接受了至少 1 次门诊透析治疗,并完成了多学科治疗方式评估。
HD 或 PD。
在所有发生终末期肾病的患者中(1579 例 HD 和 453 例 PD),65 岁以下的患者中 PD 与死亡风险降低相关。然而,在排除大约三分之一被认为不适合 PD 的所有新发患者后,无论年龄如何,两种治疗方式的生存率相似。这一发现也在对选择性门诊开始透析治疗的患者进行的分析中得到证实。治疗方式对生存的影响随时间没有变化。
PD 资格的确定是基于每个透析中心的多学科团队的判断。
对于有资格接受两种治疗方式的新发透析患者,HD 和 PD 与相似的死亡率相关。治疗方式对生存的影响似乎不会随时间改变。未来对透析方式的比较应该限于被认为有资格接受两种方式的个体,以反映在临床实践中有机会在 HD 和 PD 之间选择的患者的结果。