Vernooij Robin W M, Hockham Carinna, Strippoli Giovanni, Green Suetonia, Hegbrant Jörgen, Davenport Andrew, Barth Claudia, Canaud Bernard, Woodward Mark, Blankestijn Peter J, Bots Michiel L
Department of Nephrology & Hypertension and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
The George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lancet. 2024 Oct 25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01859-2.
High-dose haemodiafiltration has been shown, in a randomised clinical trial, to result in a 23% lower risk of mortality for patients with kidney failure when compared with conventional high-flux haemodialysis. Nevertheless, whether treatment effects differ across subgroups, whether a dose-response relationship with convection volume exists, and the effects on cause-specific mortality remain unclear. The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to compare the effects of haemodiafiltration and standard haemodialysis on all-cause and cause-specific mortality.
On July 17, 2024, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials, published from database inception, comparing online haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis designed to measure mortality outcomes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios were generated using Cox proportional hazards regression models reporting hazard ratios and 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses based on predefined patient characteristics and dose-response analyses using natural splines for convection volume were performed. This analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024511514).
Five trials (n=4153 patients; 2070 receiving haemodialysis and 2083 receiving haemodiafiltration) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 24-36), all-cause mortality occurred in 477 patients (23·3%) treated with haemodiafiltration compared with in 559 patients (27·0%) treated with haemodialysis (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·95]). No evidence of a differential effect across subgroups was noted. A graded relationship between convection volume and mortality risk was apparent: as the volume increased, the mortality risk decreased.
Compared with haemodialysis, online haemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in people with kidney failure. Results do not differ across patient and treatment characteristics and the risk reduction appears to be dose-dependent. In conclusion, the present analysis strengthens the notion that haemodiafiltration can be considered as a superior alternative to the present standard (ie, haemodialysis).
European Commission Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020.
在一项随机临床试验中,与传统高通量血液透析相比,高剂量血液滤过已被证明可使肾衰竭患者的死亡风险降低23%。然而,治疗效果在各亚组中是否存在差异、与对流体积是否存在剂量反应关系以及对特定病因死亡率的影响仍不明确。这项个体患者数据荟萃分析的目的是比较血液滤过和标准血液透析对全因死亡率和特定病因死亡率的影响。
2024年7月17日,我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,查找自数据库建立以来发表的随机对照试验,这些试验比较了在线血液滤过与血液透析以测量死亡率结果。主要结局是全因死亡率。使用Cox比例风险回归模型生成风险比,并报告风险比和95%置信区间。基于预先定义的患者特征进行亚组分析,并使用自然样条对对流体积进行剂量反应分析。该分析已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024511514)。
五项试验(n = 4153例患者;2070例接受血液透析,2083例接受血液滤过)符合纳入本分析的条件。在中位随访30个月(四分位间距24 - 36个月)后,接受血液滤过治疗的477例患者(23.3%)发生了全因死亡,而接受血液透析治疗的559例患者(27.0%)发生了全因死亡(风险比0.84 [95%置信区间0.74 - 0.95])。未发现各亚组间存在差异效应的证据。对流体积与死亡风险之间存在明显的分级关系:随着体积增加,死亡风险降低。
与血液透析相比,在线血液滤过可降低肾衰竭患者的全因死亡率。结果在患者和治疗特征方面没有差异,且风险降低似乎呈剂量依赖性。总之,本分析强化了血液滤过可被视为当前标准(即血液透析)的更佳替代方案这一观点。
欧盟委员会研究与创新计划,“地平线2020”。