家庭透析与医疗机构透析对澳大利亚和新西兰患者死亡率的影响

Home Versus Facility Dialysis and Mortality in Australia and New Zealand.

机构信息

Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Renal Medicine, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand.

Department of Nephrology, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia; Department of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australia Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.

出版信息

Am J Kidney Dis. 2021 Dec;78(6):826-836.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.03.018. Epub 2021 May 13.

Abstract

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Mortality is an important outcome for all dialysis stakeholders. We examined associations between dialysis modality and mortality in the modern era.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study comparing dialysis inception cohorts 1998-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) dialysis population.

EXPOSURE

The primary exposure was dialysis modality: facility hemodialysis (HD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), automated PD (APD), or home HD.

OUTCOME

The main outcome was death.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

Cause-specific proportional hazards models with shared frailty and subdistribution proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) models, adjusting for available confounding covariates.

RESULTS

In 52,097 patients, the overall death rate improved from ~15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 1998-2002 to ~11 in 2013-2017, with the largest cause-specific contribution from decreased infectious death. Relative to facility HD, mortality with CAPD and APD has improved over the years, with adjusted hazard ratios in 2013-2017 of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00), respectively. Increasingly, patients with lower clinical risk have been adopting APD, and to a lesser extent CAPD. Relative to facility HD, mortality with home HD was lower throughout the entire period of observation, despite increasing adoption by older patients and those with more comorbidities. All effects were generally insensitive to the modeling approach (initial vs time-varying modality, cause-specific versus subdistribution regression), different follow-up time intervals (5 year vs 7 year vs 10 year). There was no effect modification by diabetes, comorbidity, or sex.

LIMITATIONS

Potential for residual confounding, limited generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of patients on PD in 2013-2017 appears greater than the survival for patients on facility HD in ANZ. Additional research is needed to assess whether changing clinical risk profiles over time, varied dialysis prescription, and morbidity from dialysis access contribute to these findings.

摘要

背景与目的

死亡率是所有透析利益相关者的一个重要结果。我们研究了在现代,透析方式与死亡率之间的关系。

研究设计

比较了 1998-2002 年、2003-2007 年、2008-2012 年和 2013-2017 年透析起始队列的观察性研究。

地点与参与者

澳大利亚和新西兰(ANZ)透析人群。

暴露因素

主要暴露因素是透析方式:医疗机构血液透析(HD)、持续非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)、自动化 PD(APD)或家庭 HD。

主要结局

死亡。

分析方法

采用具有共同脆弱性和亚分布比例风险(Fine 和 Gray)模型的因果特定比例风险模型,调整了可用混杂协变量。

结果

在 52097 名患者中,总死亡率从 1998-2002 年的每 100 名患者年约 15 例死亡降至 2013-2017 年的约 11 例,其中感染性死亡的贡献最大。与医疗机构 HD 相比,CAPD 和 APD 的死亡率多年来有所改善,2013-2017 年调整后的危险比分别为 0.88(95%CI,0.78-0.99)和 0.91(95%CI,0.82-1.00)。具有较低临床风险的患者越来越多地采用 APD,而采用 CAPD 的则较少。与医疗机构 HD 相比,尽管接受治疗的患者年龄更大,合并症更多,但在家中进行 HD 的死亡率在整个观察期间均较低。所有效果通常不受建模方法(初始与随时间变化的方式、因果与亚分布回归)、不同随访时间间隔(5 年与 7 年与 10 年)的影响。糖尿病、合并症或性别无影响修饰作用。

局限性

潜在的残余混杂因素,有限的普遍性。

结论

2013-2017 年 PD 患者的生存率似乎高于 ANZ 医疗机构 HD 患者的生存率。需要进一步研究以评估随时间变化的临床风险状况、不同的透析处方以及透析通路引起的发病率是否导致了这些发现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索