Feldman H I, Kinosian M, Bilker W B, Simmons C, Holmes J H, Pauly M V, Escarce J J
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia 19104-6021, USA.
JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):620-5.
To evaluate the impact of dialyzer reuse on the survival of US hemodialysis patients.
Nonconcurrent cohort study of 27938 patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987.
Patient survival.
Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with the combination of peracetic and acetic acids was associated with greater mortality than treatment in facilities not reprocessing dialyzers (rate ratio [RR],1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.18; P=.02) In contrast, there was no significant difference between survival in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either formaldehyde (RR,1.03, 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P=.45) or glutaraldehyde (RR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.95-1.35, P=.18) and survival in freestanding facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. Among freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers, use of peracetic/acetic acid was associated with a higher rate of death than use of formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P=.02). There was no statistical difference between survival in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either peracetic/acetic acid (RR=0.95, 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P=.40), formaldehyde (RR=1.06, 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; P=.12), or glutaraldehyde (RR=1.09, 95% CI, 0.71-1.67; P=.70) and survival in hospital-based facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. In addition, choice of sterilant was not associated with a statistically significant difference in survival among hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers.
Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acid may be associated with worse survival than dialysis in free-standing facilities not reprocessing dialyzers or in those reprocessing with formaldehyde. We were unable to determine whether these relationships arose from greater comorbidity among patients treated in facilities using peracetic/acetic acid, poor quality of dialysis procedures in these facilities, or direct toxicity of peracetic/acetic acid. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable mortality among US hemodialysis patients treated in dialysis facilities reprocessing hemodialyzers.
评估透析器复用对美国血液透析患者生存的影响。
对1986年和1987年在美国开始进行血液透析的27938名患者进行非同期队列研究。
患者生存情况。
在独立机构中,使用过氧乙酸和乙酸组合对透析器进行再处理的透析治疗与未进行透析器再处理的机构相比,死亡率更高(率比[RR]为1.10,95%置信区间[CI]为1.02 - 1.18;P = 0.02)。相比之下,在独立机构中,使用甲醛(RR为1.03,95% CI为0.96 - 1.10;P = 0.45)或戊二醛(RR为1.13,95% CI为0.95 - 1.35,P = 0.18)对透析器进行再处理的机构与未进行透析器再处理的机构在患者生存率上无显著差异。在进行透析器再处理的独立机构中,使用过氧乙酸/乙酸比使用甲醛的死亡率更高(RR = 1.08,95% CI为1.01 - 1.14;P = 0.02)。在使用过氧乙酸/乙酸(RR = 0.95,95% CI为0.85 - 1.06;P = 0.40)、甲醛(RR = 1.06,95% CI为0.98 - 1.15;P = 0.12)或戊二醛(RR = 1.09,95% CI为0.71 - 1.67;P = 0.70)对透析器进行再处理的医院机构与未进行透析器再处理的医院机构在患者生存率上无统计学差异。此外,在进行透析器再处理的医院机构中,消毒剂的选择与患者生存率的统计学显著差异无关。
在独立机构中,使用过氧乙酸/乙酸对透析器进行再处理的透析治疗与未进行透析器再处理的独立机构或使用甲醛进行再处理的机构相比,患者生存率可能更低。我们无法确定这些关系是由于使用过氧乙酸/乙酸的机构中患者合并症更多、这些机构中透析程序质量差还是过氧乙酸/乙酸的直接毒性所致。这些发现引发了对在美国透析机构中接受透析器再处理治疗的血液透析患者中潜在可避免死亡率的重要关注。