Mathew Anna, McLeggon Jody-Ann, Mehta Nirav, Leung Samuel, Barta Valerie, McGinn Thomas, Nesrallah Gihad
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health, Great Neck, NY, USA.
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2018 Jan 10;5:2054358117749531. doi: 10.1177/2054358117749531. eCollection 2018.
Survival and hospitalization are critically important outcomes considered when choosing between intensive hemodialysis (HD), conventional HD, and peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these modalities is unclear.
We had the following aims: (1) to compare the association of mortality and hospitalization in patients undergoing intensive HD, compared with conventional HD or PD and (2) to appraise the methodological quality of the supporting evidence.
MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CENTRAL, and nephrology conference abstracts.
We included cohort studies with comparator arm, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >50% of adult patients (≥18 years) comparing any form of intensive HD (>4 sessions/wk or >5.5 h/session) with any form of chronic dialysis (PD, HD ≤4 sessions/wk or ≤5.5 h/session), that reported at least 1 predefined outcome (mortality or hospitalization).
We used the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and quality appraisal. Two reviewers screened citations and full-text articles, and extracted study-level data independently, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We pooled effect estimates of randomized and observational studies separately using generic inverse variance with random effects models, and used fixed-effects models when only 2 studies were available for pooling. Predefined subgroups for the intensive HD cohorts were classified by nocturnal versus short daily HD and home versus in-center HD.
Twenty-three studies with a total of 70 506 patients were included. Of the observational studies, compared with PD, intensive HD had a significantly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.84; = 91%). Compared with conventional HD, home nocturnal (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.38-0.55; = 0%), in-center nocturnal (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.90; = 57%) and home short daily (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95; = 82%) intensive regimens had lower mortality. Of the 2 RCTs assessing mortality, in-center short daily HD had lower mortality (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.93), while home nocturnal HD had higher mortality (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.27-11.79) in long-term observational follow-up. Hospitalization days per patient-year (mean difference: -1.98; 95% CI: -2.37 to -1.59; = 6%) were lower in nocturnal compared with conventional HD. Quality of evidence was similarly low or very low in RCTs (due to imprecision) and observational studies (due to residual confounding and selection bias).
The overall quality of evidence was low or very low for critical outcomes. Outcomes such as quality of life, transplantation, and vascular access outcomes were not included in our review.
Intensive HD regimens may be associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization compared with conventional HD or PD. As the quality of supporting evidence is low, patients who place a high value on survival must be adequately advised and counseled of risks and benefits when choosing intensive dialysis. Practice guidelines that promote shared decision-making are likely to be helpful.
在选择强化血液透析(HD)、常规HD和腹膜透析(PD)时,生存和住院是至关重要的考量结果。然而,这些透析方式的相对有效性尚不清楚。
我们有以下目标:(1)比较接受强化HD的患者与常规HD或PD患者的死亡率和住院率之间的关联;(2)评估支持证据的方法学质量。
MEDLINE、Embase、ISI科学网、CENTRAL以及肾脏病学会议摘要。
我们纳入了有对照臂的队列研究,以及成年患者(≥18岁)比例超过50%的随机对照试验(RCT),这些研究比较了任何形式的强化HD(每周>4次或每次>5.5小时)与任何形式的慢性透析(PD、每周HD≤4次或每次≤5.5小时),并报告了至少1项预定义结果(死亡率或住院率)。
我们采用GRADE方法进行系统评价和质量评估。两名评审员筛选文献和全文文章,并独立提取研究层面的数据,如有分歧通过协商解决。我们分别使用通用逆方差随机效应模型汇总随机研究和观察性研究的效应估计值,当仅有2项研究可用于汇总时使用固定效应模型。强化HD队列的预定义亚组按夜间HD与短日HD以及家庭HD与中心HD进行分类。
共纳入23项研究,总计70506例患者。在观察性研究中,与PD相比,强化HD的死亡风险显著更低(风险比[HR]:0.67;95%置信区间[CI]:0.53 - 0.84;P = 91%)。与常规HD相比,家庭夜间HD(HR:0.46;95% CI:0.38 - 0.55;P = 0%)、中心夜间HD(HR:0.73;95% CI:0.60 - 0.90;P = 57%)和家庭短日HD(HR:0.54;95% CI:0.31 - 0.95;P = 82%)强化治疗方案的死亡率更低。在2项评估死亡率的RCT中,长期观察随访显示中心短日HD的死亡率更低(HR:0.54;95% CI:0.31 - 0.93),而家庭夜间HD的死亡率更高(HR:3.88;95% CI:1.27 - 11.79)。与常规HD相比,夜间HD的每位患者每年住院天数(平均差值: - 1.98;95% CI: - 2.37至 - 1.59;P = 6%)更低。RCT(由于不精确性)和观察性研究(由于残余混杂和选择偏倚)的证据质量同样较低或非常低。
关键结果的总体证据质量较低或非常低。我们的综述未纳入生活质量、移植和血管通路等结果。
与常规HD或PD相比,强化HD方案可能与死亡率降低和住院率降低相关。由于支持证据的质量较低,在选择强化透析时,必须向高度重视生存的患者充分告知风险和益处并给予咨询。促进共同决策的实践指南可能会有所帮助。