The Committee of Renal Data Registry, The Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy, Tokyo, Japan.
Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 10;11(1):12272. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91751-w.
Few data are available regarding the association of dialyzer type with prognosis. In Japan, dialyzers are classified as types I, II, III, IV, and V based on β-microglobulin clearance rates of < 10, < 30, < 50, < 70, and ≥ 70 mL/min, respectively. We investigated the relationship of the 5 dialyzer types with 1-year mortality. This nationwide cohort study used data collected at the end of 2008 and 2009 by the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Renal Data Registry. We enrolled 203,008 patients on maintenance hemodialysis who underwent hemodialysis for at least 1 year and were managed with any of the 5 dialyzer types. To evaluate the association of dialyzer type with 1-year all-cause mortality, Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score-matched analyses were performed. After adjustment of the data with clinicodemographic factors, the type I, II, and III groups showed significantly higher hazard ratios (HRs) than the type IV dialyzers (reference). After adjustment for Kt/V and β-microglobulin levels, the HRs were significantly higher in the type I and II groups. After further adjustment for nutrition- and inflammation-related factors, the HRs were not significantly different between the type IV and type I and II groups. However, type V dialyzers consistently showed a significantly lower HR. With propensity score matching, the HR for the type V dialyzer group was significantly lower than that for the type IV dialyzer group. Additional long-term trials are required to determine whether type V dialyzers, which are high-performance dialyzers, can improve prognosis.
关于透析器类型与预后的关系,相关数据有限。在日本,透析器根据β-微球蛋白清除率分为 I、II、III、IV 和 V 型,分别为 < 10、 < 30、 < 50、 < 70 和 ≥ 70 mL/min。我们研究了 5 种透析器类型与 1 年死亡率之间的关系。这项全国性队列研究使用了日本透析治疗学会肾脏数据注册中心在 2008 年底和 2009 年收集的数据。我们纳入了 203,008 名维持性血液透析患者,这些患者至少接受了 1 年的血液透析治疗,并且使用了这 5 种透析器类型中的任何一种。为了评估透析器类型与 1 年全因死亡率的关系,我们进行了 Cox 比例风险模型和倾向评分匹配分析。在调整了临床和人口统计学因素的数据后,I、II 和 III 组的风险比(HR)明显高于 IV 型透析器(参考)。在调整了 Kt/V 和β-微球蛋白水平后,I 型和 II 型的 HR 明显更高。进一步调整了营养和炎症相关因素后,IV 型和 I 型、II 型之间的 HR 没有显著差异。然而,V 型透析器的 HR 始终较低。经过倾向评分匹配,V 型透析器组的 HR 明显低于 IV 型透析器组。需要进行更多的长期试验来确定高性能透析器 V 型透析器是否能改善预后。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021-8-27
Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2024-5
Semin Dial. 2025
Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2023-7
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018-10-1
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017-6-13
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017-1-1
J Artif Organs. 2016-9
Sci Rep. 2015-12-16