Comparison Between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis in the Risks for Disease Activity in LN-ESRD Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the advanced stage of a progressive loss of kidney function. About 10% of all patients with lupus nephritis (LN) eventually progress to ESRD, which may necessitate renal replacement therapy (RRT), such as hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and/or kidney transplant. Research hasn't confirmed which dialysis options, prior to kidney transplantation, are beneficial to patients' prognoses.

OBJECTIVE

The study intended to compare the risks-related to disease activity, exercise, all-cause infection, all-cause cardiovascular events, and mortality-of the use of HD and PD for LN-ESRD adults, as the initial alternative treatment before renal transplantation.

DESIGN

The research team performed a narrative review and analyzed the data obtained about clinical outcomes for HD and peritoneal dialysis. For the review, the research team searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases. The search used the keywords: end-stage renal disease, renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

SETTING

The study made in Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, China.

PARTICIPANTS

The studies included 15 636 patients who had been diagnosed with LN-ESRD prior to renal transplantation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

For the data analysis, the research team divided the data into two groups, one of which included the data on the clinical outcomes for HD patientsand one of which included the data on the clinical outcomes for PD patients. The study evaluated four types of risks: lupus-flare risks, all-cause infection risks, all-cause cardiovascular events risk, and risk of mortality.

RESULTS

The 16 studies found in the review reported one or more outcomes of interest for the two dialysis modalities, HD and PD. The analysis of the data from the 16 studies showed that HD was associated with a higher risk than PD: (1) of lupus flares, with RR = 1.23 (confidence interval: 0.82, 1.85), but the difference didn't reach statistical significance (P = .31); (2) of all-cause infection risk, with RR = 1.02 (confidence interval: 0.66, 1.59), but the difference didn't reach statistical significance (P = .92); (3) of all-cause cardiovascular events, with RR = 1.44 (confidence interval: 1.02, 2.04), and the difference reached statistical significance (P = .04); and (4) of mortality risk, with RR = 1.29 (confidence interval: 0.95, 1.75), but the difference didn't reach statistical significance (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study may have reference significance for clinical treatment of ESRD. Except for all-cause cardiovascular events in which PD was superior to HD, offering better outcomes, both treatment modalities provide more or less similar clinical outcomes as effective initial choices for RRT in LN-ESRD patients prior to renal transplant. The current research team, however, encourages further research on the question, addressing better the possible sources of biases encountered in the current study.