The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients' plans to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Compared with in-center hemodialysis, self-care dialysis (including home and self-care hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis) is less resource intensive and associated with similar clinical outcomes. However, utilization of self-care dialysis has been very low. We performed a randomized controlled trial in predialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (GFR <30 mL/min) to determine the impact of a patient-centered educational intervention on patients' intention to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis. METHODS: Seventy patients with CKD who were receiving care in a multidisciplinary predialysis clinic were randomized to receive either (1) a two-phase patient-centered educational intervention (phase 1 included educational booklets and a 15-minute video on self-care dialysis; phase 2 included a 90-minute small group interactive educational session on self-care dialysis) in addition to their regular multidisciplinary care, or (2) ongoing standard care and education in the multidisciplinary predialysis clinic. The primary outcome was patients' intention to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis, assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were randomized to standard care; 34 completed the study. Thirty-five patients were randomized to the educational intervention; 30 completed phase 1 and 28 completed phase 2. By study end, significantly more patients in the intervention group (82.1%) intended to start dialysis with self-care dialysis compared with the standard care group (50%, P= 0.015). This difference persisted after controlling for the small baseline differences among patients in the two study groups (P= 0.004). CONCLUSION: A two-phase educational intervention can increase the proportion of patients who intend to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis.     

Body mass index, dialysis modality, and survival: analysis of the United States Renal Data System Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Wave II Study

BACKGROUND: The impact of obesity on survival in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients as related to dialysis modality (i.e., a direct comparison of hemodialysis with peritoneal dialysis) has not been assessed adjusting for differences in medication use, follow-up > or =2 years, or accounting for changes in dialysis modality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Wave II Study (DMMS) patients who started dialysis in 1996, and were followed until October 31 2001. Cox regression analysis was used to model adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) for mortality for categories of body mass index (BMI), both as quartiles and as > or =30 kg/m2 vs. lower. Because such a large proportion of peritoneal dialysis patients changed to hemodialysis during the study period (45.5%), a sensitivity analysis was performed calculating survival time both censoring and not censoring on the date of change from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis. RESULTS: There were 1675 hemodialysis and 1662 peritoneal dialysis patients. Among hemodialysis patients, 5-year survival for patients with BMI > or =30 kg/m2 was 39.8% vs. 32.3% for lower BMI (P < 0.01 by log-rank test). Among peritoneal dialysis patients, 5-year survival for patients with BMI >/=30 kg/m2 was 38.7% vs. 40.4% for lower BMI (P > 0.05 by log-rank test). In adjusted analysis, BMI > or = 30 kg/m2 was associated with improved survival in hemodialysis patients (AHR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81, 0.99; P= 0.042) but not peritoneal dialysis patients (AHR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86, 1.15; P= 0.89). Results were not different on censoring of change from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that any survival advantage associated with obesity among chronic dialysis patients is significantly less likely for peritoneal dialysis patients, compared to hemodialysis patients.     

Survival analysis in automated peritoneal dialysis patients

Objectives To compare the clinical characteristics, long-term survival and associated risk factors of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) patients and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients. Methods As a retrospectively study, adult patients started peritoneal dialysis in Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) from September 1st, 2002 to September 30th, 2016 were enrolled. Baseline information and dialysis associated parameters were collected. The primary outcome was death and the secondary outcome was technical failure. The risk factors of death were analyzed in APD patients by Cox's regression model. Homochromous gender and age matched CAPD patients were analyzed as control. Results The baseline condition of 69 APD patients were similar to those of 138 CAPD patients. The survival rates of APD patients at 1-year、3-year and 5-year were 95.4%, 88.0% and 73.0% respectively, which were superior to CAPD patients. No significant difference in technical survival was found between APD and CAPD patients. Single-factor Cox's regression analysis showed that all-cause mortality of CAPD patients was 2.2 times higher than that of APD patients (95% CI 1.221-3.837). In the multi-factor Cox regression analysis model, adjusted by age, complications (including cardiovascular disease and diabetes), nPCR and serum creatinine, dialysis modality was not an independent risk factor of dialysis patients. Age (HR=1.077, 95%CI 1.016-1.142, P=0.013), diabetes (HR=3.608, 95%CI 1.117-11.660, P=0.032) and serum albumin (HR=0.890, 95%CI 0.808-0.982, P=0.020) were independently associated with all-cause death of APD patients. Conclusions Dialysis modality was not an independent risk factor for the all-cause mortality of peritoneal dialysis patients. Age, diabetic nephropathy and hypoalbuminemia were independently associated with the death of APD patients.     

Comparative mortality of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in Canada

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of mortality rates in patients on hemodialysis versus those on peritoneal dialysis have been inconsistent. We hypothesized that comorbidity has an important effect on differential survival in these two groups of patients. METHODS: Eight hundred twenty-two consecutive patients at 11 Canadian institutions with irreversible renal failure had an extensive assessment of comorbid illness collected prospectively, immediately prior to starting dialysis therapy. The cohort was assembled between March 1993 and November 1994; vital status was ascertained as of January 1, 1998. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 24 months. Thirty-four percent of patients at baseline, 50% at three months, and 51% at six months used peritoneal dialysis. Values for a previously validated comorbidity score were higher for patients on hemodialysis at baseline (4.0 vs. 3.1, P < 0.001), three months (3.7 vs. 3.2, P = 0.001), and six months (3.6 vs. 3.2, P = 0.005). The overall mortality was 41%. The unadjusted peritoneal dialysis/hemodialysis mortality hazard ratios were 0.65 (95% CI, 0. 51 to 0.83, P = 0.0005), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.06, P = NS), and 0. 83 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.08, P = NS) based on the modality of dialysis in use at baseline, three months, and six months, respectively. When adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, cardiac failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, malignancy, and acuity of renal failure, the corresponding hazard ratios were 0.79 (95% CI, 0. 62 to 1.01, P = NS), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.28, P = NS), and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.24, P = NS). Adjustment for a previously validated comorbidity score resulted in hazard ratios of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94, P = 0.01), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.19, P = NS), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.13, P = NS) at baseline, three months, and six months. There was no survival advantage for either modality in any of the major subgroups defined by age, sex, or diabetic status. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis in Canada is due to lower comorbidity and a lower burden of acute onset end-stage renal disease at the inception of dialysis therapy. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, as practiced in Canada in the 1990s, are associated with similar overall survival rates.     

Hypertension as a determinant of survival for patients treated with home dialysis

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the risks of hypertension for dialysis patients have yielded conflicting results. The aim of this study was to investigate, in a home dialysis population with low rates of diabetes and antihypertensive drug use, whether blood pressure (BP) was an independent risk factor for survival. METHODS: The outcome of 168 consecutive patients (94 male, 88% Caucasian), aged 48 years (SD 16), who began home hemodialysis (HD; N = 124) or home continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD; N = 44) between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1994 were analyzed retrospectively. Only 4.7% of patients took antihypertensive drugs while on dialysis. The patients were followed to December 31, 1998 with the primary outcome being all-cause mortality. Censoring events were transplantation, transfer to another center and treatment modality change. The Cox proportional hazard model was used with baseline predictors. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients died and the median overall survival was 4.2 years (5.6 on HD, 2.2 on CAPD, P < 0.0001). Mean BP at start of dialysis predicted survival on its own (P = 0.0009) and in the joint Cox model (P = 0.047). Other significant predictors in the joint model were age [10 year increase, relative hazard (RH) = 1.55, P = 0.0008], albumin (10 g/L decrease, RH = 2.05, P = 0.007), diabetes (RH = 3.42, P = 0.015) and peripheral vascular disease (RH = 2.19, P = 0.02) but not dialysis modality (RH = 1.63, P = 0.13). High and low mean blood pressure (BP) values at the start of dialysis were associated with the highest mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among the home dialysis patients, most of whom did not require antihypertensive drugs, hypertension was a risk factor for survival and patients with mid-range BP values survived the longest.     

Survival advantage of hemodialysis relative to peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been proposed as a therapeutic option for patients with end-stage renal disease and associated congestive heart failure (CHF). Here, we compare mortality risks in these patients by dialysis modality by including all patients who started planned chronic dialysis with associated congestive heart failure and were prospectively enrolled in the French REIN Registry. Survival was compared between 933 PD and 3468 hemodialysis (HD) patients using a Kaplan-Meier model, Cox regression, and propensity score analysis. The patients were followed from their first dialysis session and stratified by modality at day 90 or last modality if death occurred prior. There was a significant difference in the median survival time of 20.4 months in the PD group and 36.7 months in the HD group (hazard ratio, 1.55). After correction for confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio for death in PD compared to the HD patients remained significant at 1.48. Subgroup analyses showed that the results were not changed with regard to the New York Heart Association stage, age strata, or estimated glomerular filtration rate strata at first renal replacement therapy. The use of propensity score did not change results (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.55). Thus, mortality risk was higher with PD than with HD among incident patients with end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure. These results may help guide clinical decisions and also highlight the need for randomized clinical trials.     

Impact of dialysis modality on survival of new ESRD patients with congestive heart failure in the United States

BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized, but not proven, that peritoneal dialysis might be the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with established congestive heart failure (CHF) through better volume regulation compared with hemodialysis. METHODS: National incidence data on 107,922 new ESRD patients from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medical Evidence Form were used to test the hypothesis that peritoneal dialysis was superior to hemodialysis in prolonging survival of patients with CHF. Nonproportional Cox regression models evaluated the relative hazard of death for patients with and without CHF by dialysis modality using primarily the intent-to-treat but also the as-treated approach. Diabetics and nondiabetics were analyzed separately. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of CHF was 33% at ESRD initiation. There were 27,149 deaths (25.2%), 5423 transplants (5%), and 3753 (3.5%) patients lost to follow-up over 2 years. Adjusted mortality risks were significantly higher for patients with CHF treated with peritoneal dialysis than hemodialysis [diabetics, relative risk (RR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.41; nondiabetics, RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.35]. Among patients without CHF, adjusted mortality risk were higher only for diabetic patients treated with peritoneal dialysis compared with hemodialysis (RR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) while nondiabetics had similar survival on peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04). CONCLUSION: New ESRD patients with a clinical history of CHF experienced poorer survival when treated with peritoneal dialysis compared with hemodialysis. These data suggest that peritoneal dialysis may not be the optimal choice for new ESRD patients with CHF perhaps through impaired volume regulation and worsening cardiomyopathy.     

Prognostic analysis of aged end-stage renal disease patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Objective To compare the survival rates of elderly hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients and identify their independent prognostic predictors. Methods Patients aging ＞60 years old who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 were included. Propensity score method (PSM) was applied to adjust for selection bias. Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain survival curves and a Cox regression model was used to evaluate risk factors for mortality. Results 447 eligible patients with maintenance dialysis were identified, 236 with hemodialysis and 211 with peritoneal dialysis. 174 pairs of patients were matched, with the baseline data [age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the primary disease] between two groups showing no significant difference (P＞0.05). Cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events and infection were major causes of death in both groups and there was no significant difference in the causes of death between two groups (P＞0.05). The overall survival rates at 1 and 5 year were 93.6% and 63.4% respectively in HD group, 91.9% and 61.5% in PD group. The differences of total survival rates between HD and PD patients were not significant (P＞0.05). Cox regression analysis showed age(≥80 year) (P＜0.001, HR=1.058, 95%CI 1.028-1.088), diabetic nephropathy (P=0.001, HR=2.161, 95%CI 1.384-3.373), CCI≥5 (P=0.007, HR=1.935, 95%CI 1.201-3.117) were independent prognostic risk predictors in HD patients; age(≥80 year) (P=0.022, HR=1.043, 95%CI 1.006-1.081), serum albumin level ＜ 35 g/L (P=0.025, HR=1.776, 95%CI 1.075-2.934), and prealbumin (P=0.012, HR=0.968, 95%CI 0.944-0.993) were independent prognostic predictors in PD patients. Conclusions The differences of total survival rates between aged HD and PD patients are not significant. Age, diabetic nephropathy, CCI≥5 and age, serum albumin＜35 g/L, prealbumin＞30 g/L respectively influence the survival of elderly HD and PD patients.     

透析开始残余肾功能与维持性透析患者预后的关系

目的 评估终末期肾病患者透析开始残余肾功能与维持性透析预后的关系.方法 收集2005年1月1日至2009年9年30日新进入血透或腹透治疗的终末期肾病成年患者资料,随访至2010年3月31日.根据透析开始时估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)分为≥10.5、8～＜10.5、6～＜8、＜6 ml· min-1·(1.73 m2)-1 4组.eGFR评估采用MDRD简化公式.终点事件为全因死亡和心脑血管死亡.结果 (1)共562例患者入选,透析开始中位eGFR为5.60(2.26～12.62) ml· min-1·(1.73 m2)-1;中位随访时间为17(0～58)个月 ;死亡141例,中位生存期为45.48(43.05 ～47.90)个月.随着透析开始eGFR下降,4组患者Scr、BUN、血尿酸(SUA)、血前白蛋白、血磷、血钙磷乘积、整段甲状旁腺激素(iPTH)、平均动脉压(MAP)逐渐升高 ;血红蛋白(Hb)、男性患者比例、并发糖尿病比例、Charison并发症指数≥5比例逐渐下降,差异均有统计学意义(均P＜ 0.05).随着透析开始eGFR下降,并发左室肥大比例有逐渐升高趋势,但差异无统计学意义.(2)Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示4组患者总体生存率差异无统计学意义.Cox回归分析显示透析开始eGFR与透析预后无显著关系.对透析非早期(＞3个月)死亡患者进行Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析,4组患者1年生存率差异无统计学意义.多因素Cox回归分析显示透析开始eGFR是透析1年生存预后的保护因素(HR =0.791,95％CI 0.669～0.935,P＜0.01).(3)以心脑血管死亡为终点事件,多因素Cox回归分析显示,透析开始eGFR是心脑血管生存预后(HR =0.868,95％CI 0.777～0.971,P＜0.05)和1年心脑血管生存预后(HR=0.937,95％CI 0.851～0.992,P＜0.05)的保护因素.(4)多因素Cox回归分析显示,透析开始eGFR增高1 ml·min-1·(1.73 m2)-1,腹膜透析患者死亡风险下降10％(HR=0.90,95％CI 0.81～0.99,P＜ 0.05).血液透析方式4组患者Kaplan-Meier生存率分析显示,差异有统计学意义(Log-rank检验,P=0.047),8～＜10.5组生存率最低,与6～＜8组、＜6组差异有统计学意义(Log-rank检验,P=0.033,P=0.005).多因素Cox回归分析并未显示透析开始eGFR与预后相关.多因素Cox回归分析提示透析开始eGFR增高1 ml·min-1·(1.73 m2)-1,慢性肾小球肾炎患者和慢性肾小球肾炎腹膜透析患者死亡风险分别降低16.6％(HR=0.834,95％CI 0.736～0.946,P＜0.01)和32.1％(HR=0.679,95％CI 0.535～0.862,P＜0.01).以心脑血管死亡为终点,多因素Cox回归分析显示透析开始eGFR增高1 ml·min-1·(1.73 m2)-1,慢性肾小球肾炎患者心脑血管死亡风险下降18.2％(HR=0.818,95％CI 0.669～0.999,P＜0.05).结论 本组患者透析时机明显晚于国际透析指南的标准.随着透析开始eGFR降低,并发症增多及程度加重.早期透析可能无法提高透析患者的总体生存率,但可能有助于改善患者心脑血管及1年总体生存预后和腹膜透析、慢性肾小球肾炎患者的预后.     

Selection bias explains apparent differential mortality between dialysis modalities

The relative risk of death for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis compared with those treated with hemodialysis appears to change with duration of dialysis therapy. Patients who start dialysis urgently are at high risk for mortality and are treated almost exclusively with hemodialysis, introducing bias to such mortality comparisons. To better isolate the association between dialysis treatment modality and patient mortality, we examined the relative risk for mortality for peritoneal dialysis compared with hemodialysis among individuals who received ≥4 months of predialysis care and who started dialysis electively as outpatients. From a total of 32,285 individuals who received dialysis in Ontario, Canada during a nearly 8-year period, 6,573 patients met criteria for elective, outpatient initiation. We detected no difference in survival between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis after adjusting for relevant baseline characteristics. The relative risk of death did not change with duration of dialysis therapy in our primary analysis, but it did change with time when we defined our patient population using the more inclusive criteria typical of previous studies. These results suggest that peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis associate with similar survival among incident dialysis patients who initiate dialysis electively, as outpatients, after at least 4 months of predialysis care. Selection bias, rather than an effect of the treatment itself, likely explains the previously described change in the relative risk of death over time between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.     

Advantages of peritoneal dialysis in comparison to hemodialysis,in cardiac allograft recipients with end stage renal disease

End stage renal disease is a serious complication in heart or heart–lung transplant recipients and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The majority of these patients are currently treated with hemodialysis. Since there are no randomized control trials comparing hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis in this patient population, the potential beneficial effects of peritoneal dialysis remain largely unknown. We compared the clinical outcome of such patients on peritoneal dialysis with another group on hemodialysis. Our results indicate that patients on peritoneal dialysis had fewer episodes of congestive heart failure, fluid overload and a lower overall hospitalization rate, despite having worse cardiac function than patients on hemodialysis.     

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of two-compartment peritoneal dialysis fluid with low glucose degradation products in peritoneal dialysis patients

Objectives To study the efficacy of the two-compartment peritoneal dialysis fluid with low glucose degradation products in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Methods Pubmed, EBMASE,Cochrane Library, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI, CBM and other databases were searched, at the same time the information form relevant literatures until December 2013 were searched by hand. To be eligible, studies had to be randomized controlled trials that allocated PD patients to two-compartment peritoneal dialysis fluid with low glucose degradation products (low-GPDs group) or to traditional dialysis fluid (control group). The qualities of included articles were assessed and then a meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 12 documents, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 1 059 cases were included. Meta-analysis results were as follows: (1)the low-GPDs group had higher level of CA125 in peritoneal dialysis effluent, higher residual renal function compared with that in the control group and the weighted mean difference were 19.61 (95%CI 12.04-27.18, P＜0.01) and 0.78 (0.14-1.43, P=0.02), respectively; (2)There was no statistically significant difference between control and low-GPDs group in the ultrafiltration, peritonitis and plasma bicarbonate (all P＞0.05); (3)Four studies showed no difference in peritoneal dialysis technique survival between the two group (P＞0.05). Conclusions The two-compartment peritoneal dialysis fluid with low glucose degradation products is effective and safe, has no negative effects on the frequency of peritonitis, patient’s peritoneal member transport function and plasma bicarbonate, but it causes less mesothelial damage and has higher residual renal function in patients than conventional ones, and does not affect the technique survival time.     

Prognostic analysis of end-stage renal disease patients without diabetes mellitus receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Objective To compare the prognosis of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients without diabetes mellitus and identify related influencing factors. Methods Patients who started hemodialysis with an arteriovenous graft or fistula or PD in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 1, 2013 to February 1, 2019 were included. They were followed up until May 1, 2019. The patients were divided into HD group and PD group according to the initial dialysis modality. Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain survival curves, the Cox regression model was used to evaluate influence factors for survival rates, and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to eliminate influence of the confounders in the groups. Results There were 371 patients with maintenance dialysis enrolled in this study, including 113 cases (30.5%) in HD group and 258 cases (69.5%) in PD group. At baseline, the scores of standard mean difference (SMD) in age, body mass index (BMI), combined with cerebrovascular disease, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), blood potassium, plasma albumin and hemoglobin between the two groups were greater than 0.1. The score of SMD decreased after IPTW, and the most data were less than 0.1, which meant that the balance had been reached between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the cumulative survival rates had no significant difference for all-cause death before using IPTW between the two groups (Log-rank χ2=0.094, P=0.759). After adjusting for confounders with IPTW, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the cumulative survival rates still had no significant difference for all-cause death between the two groups (Log-rank χ2=2.090, P=0.150). Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that there was no significant difference between HD and PD on survival rates in ESRD patients without diabetes mellitus for all-cause death (PD/HD, HR=1.171, 95%CI 0.426-3.223, P=0.760). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that there was no significant difference between HD and PD on survival rates in ESRD patients without diabetes mellitus (PD/HD, HR=1.460, 95%CI 0.515-4.144, P=0.477), and high plasma albumin (HR=0.893, 95%CI 0.813-0.981, P=0.019) was an independent protective factor for survival in ESRD patients without diabetes mellitus. There was still no significant difference between HD and PD on survival rates in ESRD patients without diabetes mellitus after using IPTW (PD/HD, HR=1.842, 95%CI 0.514-6.604, P=0.348). Conclusion The difference of cumulative survival rates between HD and PD is not significant in ESRD patients without diabetes mellitus.     

Comparison of sleep quality between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients

AIM: Sleep disorders are common in patients with end-stage renal disease. Although studies have been conducted on the type and frequency of sleep disturbances in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients, there has been no study comparing the sleep quality between these two groups. Therefore, we aimed to compare sleep quality between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. METHODS: A total of 102 patients (52 hemodialysis and 50 peritoneal dialysis) were included in the study. The Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) was used for the assessment of sleep quality. Two groups were compared for seven components of the PSQI questionnaire and global score as well as for clinical and laboratory findings. We also assessed the independent predictors of sleep quality. RESULTS: There were 51 male and 51 female patients (29 male and 23 female in hemodialysis group versus 22 male and 28 female in peritoneal dialysis group). The mean age was 55.5 +/- 14.6 years in the hemodialysis and 51.5 +/- 18.1 years in the peritoneal dialysis group. The median dialysis duration was 36 (77.0) months. The sleep quality was poor in 88.5% of the hemodialysis patients and 78.0% of the peritoneal dialysis patients. However, this difference in sleep quality was not significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was a significant association between the sleep quality and the age, presence of diabetes mellitus, and serum albumin. Among these variables, only age was found to be an independent predictor of sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients had a similar high rate of poor sleep quality. Further studies are necessary to investigate the causes of poor quality of sleep and to investigate methods to improve sleep quality in this population.     

Registry of pregnancy in dialysis patients

A total of 2,299 dialysis units listed by the Health Care Finance Administration were surveyed to determine the frequency and course of pregnancies in dialysis patients. The responses included 930 units caring for 6,230 females aged 14 to 44 years (1,699 receiving peritoneal dialysis and 4,531 receiving hemodialysis). Two percent of the female patients of childbearing age became pregnant over a 4-year period (2.4% of the hemodialysis patients and 1.1% of the peritoneal dialysis patients). The infant survival rate was 40.2% in the 184 pregnancies in women who conceived after starting dialysis and 73.6% in the 57 pregnancies in women who started dialysis after conception. In the subset of women in whom dialysis modality was known, infant survival was not significantly different between the hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients (39.5% v 37%). There was a trend toward better infant survival in women who received dialysis > or = 20 hours per week and a weak correlation between number of hours of dialysis and gestational age (P = 0.05). Maternal complications included two maternal deaths and five intensive care unit admissions for hypertensive crisis. Seventy-nine percent of women had some degree of hypertension, and 32 had blood pressure higher than 170/110 mm Hg. Only 5.9% of women had a hematocrit greater than 30% throughout pregnancy. Twenty-six percent of women treated with erythropoietin (EPO) and 77% of women not receiving EPO required transfusions. Eleven infants had congenital anomalies and 11 had long-term medical problems. Eighty-four percent of infants born to women who conceived after starting dialysis were premature. The likelihood of a surviving infant resulting from pregnancy in dialysis patients is higher than previously observed. There is no preferred dialysis modality. There is a suggestion that increased dialysis time may improve outcome. Prematurity remains a major cause of morbidity and likely contributes to a high frequency of long-term medical problems in surviving infants.     

Patient and technique survival on peritoneal dialysis in patients with failed renal allograft: a case-control study

Failed renal allograft is becoming one of the most frequent causes of dialysis initiation in countries with developed transplant programs. The majority of patients initiate hemodialysis (HD) as their next renal replacement modality and concerns about the success of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in this patient population has been expressed. We evaluated patient and technique outcome in a cohort of 494 patients in the United States who initiated PD after a failed renal allograft in the years 2000-2003, and compared the outcomes to those of two case-matched groups: patients new to dialysis or patients transferred from HD who started PD during the same period. Patients starting PD after a failed allograft had patient survival and technique survival similar to case-matched controls. Transplantation was lower in patients with failed allograft than controls. The high success of PD in patients with failed allograft suggests that it is beneficial to utilize this modality more frequently in this patient group than current practice.     

Quality of life in patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis: what are the important determinants?

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have significant impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In part, this is due to the intrusiveness of the treatment (hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) that is required. It is unclear whether hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis is associated with a higher HRQOL. METHODS: 192 prevalent patients who self-selected treatment with hemodialysis (either in-center, satellite or home/self-care hemodialysis) or peritoneal dialysis were studied to determine whether treatment with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis is associated with a higher HRQOL. Demographic, laboratory and clinical information (including the presence of comorbid conditions using the Charlson comorbidity index) was assessed at baseline. The outcome of interest was HRQOL, which was measured using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF), the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the EuroQol EQ-5D at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in HRQOL scores for the SF-36, the EQ-5D and for 9 of 11 KDQOL dimensions for patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis at baseline. As expected, HRQOL was significantly lower for patients who had more comorbid disease, required assistance with their daily care, and for patients with less than a grade 12 education. After controlling for the effect of other important variables, HRQOL (as measured by the EQ-5D visual analog or index scores) did not differ between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. HRQOL was stable over time, both for patients who started on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in HRQOL for prevalent ESRD patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. It will be important to determine if this finding holds true for incident patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.     

Greater risk of hip fracture in hemodialysis than in peritoneal dialysis

Summary

Several differences may have existed between patients treated with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis because of the difference in dialysis modality. This nationwide population-based cohort study demonstrated that patients on hemodialysis had an increased risk of hip fracture compared to patients on peritoneal dialysis; the hazard ratio was 1.52.

Introduction

Numerous debates on which dialysis modality is “superior” have taken place in recent decades. However, no large-scale study has ever mentioned about the relationship between dialysis modality and risk of hip fracture.

Methods

We identified 64,124 incident end-stage renal disease patients from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan between 1998 and 2008, including 59,457 (92.72 %) hemodialysis (HD) and 4,667 (7.28 %) peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. After 8:1 propensity score matching, 31,554 patients, of whom 28,048 were HD and 3,506 were PD patients, were included in the study. We conducted the Cox proportional hazards model to examine the effects of dialysis modality and other variables on hip fracture risk.

Results

A total of 2,587 hip fractures were identified in 64,124 dialysis patients. The incidence rate of hip fracture was 13.60 per 1000 patient-years in the HD group and 6.25 in the PD group. Dialysis modality, sex, age, presence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, medication with antiepileptic drugs, diuretics, steroids, and vitamin D had statistically significant associations with hip fracture. Patients on HD had an increased risk of hip fracture compared to patients on PD; the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.52 (95 % CI: 1.09–2.12, P?=?0.02).

Conclusions

In this population-based cohort study, HD had a greater hip fracture risk compared to PD; the HR was 1.52. We should focus more on reducing the risk of hip fractures in hemodialysis patients.     

血液透析和腹膜透析患者生存比较

目的 比较血液透析和腹膜透析患者的生存情况,探讨影响透析患者生存的主要危险因素。 方法 研究对象为2005年1月1日至2008年12月31日期间新进入透析且年龄≥18岁患者,随访至2009年3月31日。应用Kaplan-Meier法、log-rank检验及Cox回归模型分析患者的生存资料。 结果 共460例透析患者入选,其中247例起始采用血透治疗,213例起始采用腹透治疗。两组患者的基线资料,包括开始透析年龄、体质量指数（BMI）、估算肾小球滤过率（eGFR）、平均动脉压、进入透析治疗前心脑血管事件、Charlson并发症指数（CCI）等的差异均无统计学意义。中位随访时间为17.9（0.25,51）个月。意向治疗分析结果中,Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示血透总体生存率优于腹透（P ＜ 0.05,log-rank检验）;透析1年内两组生存率差异无统计学意义（P = 0.14）,而透析1年后腹透患者的生存率显著低于血透患者（P ＜ 0.05）。亚组分析结果显示,≥65岁的非糖尿病肾病血透组生存率显著高于腹透组（P ＜ 0.05）。Cox回归分析显示,经混杂因素调整后,两种透析方式本身对透析生存无明显影响（HR,HD：PD = 0.778,95%CI 0.483~1.254,P = 0.303）;而年龄（HR = 1.051,95%CI 1.030~1.073,P ＜ 0.01）、透前有脑血管意外史（HR = 2.032,95%CI 1.125~3.670,P ＜ 0.05）、透前CCI≥5（HR=2.592,95%CI 1.230~5.465,P ＜ 0.05）、前白蛋白（HR = 0.022,95%CI 0.001~0.768,P ＜ 0.05）为透析患者生存率的主要影响因素。 结论 透析龄≤1年的血透和腹透生存率无显著差异;透析龄>1年的血透患者生存率可能逐渐高于腹透患者。老年非糖尿病患者血透生存率可能高于腹透。年龄、透前脑血管意外史、透前CCI≥5为影响透析生存率的主要危险因素。     

Associations of low serum total bilirubin level with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients

Objective To investigate the association of low serum total bilirubin (TBIL) level with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients. Methods As a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, all the patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis catheterization in the Department of Nephrology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and started peritoneal dialysis for more than 3 months from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010 were included. Demographics, baseline clinical and laboratory test results were collected. All patients were followed up until December 31, 2012. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to their baseline serum TBIL levels (interquartile range). Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the survival rate of each group. Cox regression model was used to analyze the association of TBIL with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Logistic regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of low TBIL level. Results A total of 880 peritoneal dialysis patients with baseline TBIL data were enrolled in this study, with age of (48.0±15.4) years old, among whom 59.0% were male. Median TBIL was 4.5 μmol/L and interquartile range was 3.4-5.8 μmol/L. The comparison between TBIL quartile groups showed that the difference in proportion of diabetics, Charlson comorbidity index, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum calcium, intact parathyroid hormone, urea nitrogen, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was statistically significant (all P＜0.05), while the difference in body mass index (BMI), estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine, urea nitrogen, uric acid and phosphorus was not statistically significant. After a median follow-up of 31 months, 194 patients died, 104 of which were cardiovascular deaths. Kaplan-Meier curves showed higher all-cause mortality in patients with TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L (Q1 group) (P=0.032) and there was no statistical difference in the cardiovascular mortality among different groups. After adjusting for biochemical indicators such as demographics, comorbidities, and liver function, taking baseline TBIL Q2 level (3.4＜TBIL≤4.5 μmol/L) as a reference, the hazard ratio for all-cause death in patients with TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L was 1.702 (95%CI 1.093-2.650, P=0.019), and the hazard ratio for cardiovascular death was 1.760 (95%CI 0.960-3.227, P=0.068). Multiple logistic regression analysis results showed that diabetes (OR=1.065, 95%CI 1.010-1.122, P=0.019) and high BMI (OR=1.838, 95%CI 1.056-3.197, P=0.031) were risk factors for baseline serum TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L. However, high hemoglobin (OR=0.990, 95%CI 0.982-0.998, P=0.011), high serum albumin (OR=0.950, 95%CI 0.916-0.985, P=0.006) and high ALT (OR=0.998, 95%CI 0.976-0.999, P=0.036) were the protective factors for patients with baseline serum TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L. Conclusion Baseline serum TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L in peritoneal dialysis patients is independently associated with all-cause mortality, and is not significantly associated with cardiovascular mortality; and baseline serum TBIL≤3.4 μmol/L occurred is associated with diabetes, high body mass index, low levels of hemoglobin, serum albumin and ALT.