Mortality After Home Hemodialysis Treatment Failure and Return to In-Center Hemodialysis

Author(s):  
David J. Semple ◽  
Matthew Sypek ◽  
Shahid Ullah ◽  
Christopher Davies ◽  
Stephen McDonald
Author(s):  
Isabelle Ethier ◽  
Yeoungjee Cho ◽  
Carmel Hawley ◽  
Elaine M Pascoe ◽  
Matthew A Roberts ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In the era of organ shortage, home hemodialysis (HHD) has been identified as the possible preferential bridge to kidney transplantation. Data are conflicting regarding the comparability of HHD and transplantation outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient and treatment survival between HHD patients and kidney transplant recipients. Methods The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry was used to include incident HHD patients on Day 90 after initiation of kidney replacement therapy and first kidney-only transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand from 1997 to 2017. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier product-limit method comparing HHD patients with subtypes of kidney transplant recipients using the log-rank test. Adjusted analyses were performed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for time to all-cause mortality. Time-to-treatment failure or death was assessed as a composite secondary outcome. Results The study compared 1411 HHD patients with 4960 living donor (LD) recipients, 6019 standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and 2427 expanded criteria donor (ECD) recipients. While LD and SCD recipients had reduced risks of mortality compared with HHD patients [LD adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.71; SCD HR = 0.65 95% CI 0.52–0.79], the risk of mortality was comparable between ECD recipients and HHD patients (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.73–1.12). LD, SCD and ECD kidney recipients each experienced superior time-to-treatment failure or death compared with HHD patients. Conclusions This large registry study showed that kidney transplant offers a survival benefit compared with HHD but that this advantage is not significant for ECD recipients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shashidhar Cherukuri ◽  
Maria Bajo ◽  
Giacomo Colussi ◽  
Roberto Corciulo ◽  
Hafedh Fessi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Ethier ◽  
Yeoungjee Cho ◽  
Carmel Hawley ◽  
Elaine M Pascoe ◽  
Matthew A Roberts ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims In the era of organ shortage, home hemodialysis (HHD) has been identified as the possible preferential bridge to kidney transplantation. Data are conflicting regarding the comparability of HHD and transplantation outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient and treatment survival between HHD patients and kidney transplant recipients. Method The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry was used to include incident HHD patients on day 90 after initiation of kidney replacement therapy and first kidney-only transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand from 1997 to 2017. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method comparing HHD patients to subtypes of kidney transplant recipients using the log-rank test. Adjusted analyses were performed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for time to all-cause mortality. Time-to-treatment failure or death was assessed as a composite secondary outcome. Results The study compared 1411 HHD patients to 4960 living donor (LD) recipients, 6019 standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and 2427 expanded criteria donor (ECD) recipients. While LD and SCD recipients had reduced risks of mortality compared to HHD patients (LD adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95%CI 0.46-0.71; SCD HR 0.65 95%CI 0.52-0.79), the risk of mortality was comparable between ECD recipients and HHD patients (HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.73-1.12). LD, SCD and ECD kidney recipients each experienced superior time-to-treatment failure or death compared to HHD patients. Conclusion This large registry study showed that kidney transplant offers a survival benefit compared to HHD but that this advantage is not significant for ECD recipients.


2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
ROBERT FINN
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 222 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareile Hofmann ◽  
Nathalie Wrobel ◽  
Simon Kessner ◽  
Ulrike Bingel

According to experimental and clinical evidence, the experiences of previous treatments are carried over to different therapeutic approaches and impair the outcome of subsequent treatments. In this behavioral pilot study we used a change in administration route to investigate whether the effect of prior treatment experience on a subsequent treatment depends on the similarity of both treatments. We experimentally induced positive or negative experiences with a topical analgesic treatment in two groups of healthy human subjects. Subsequently, we compared responses to a second, unrelated and systemic analgesic treatment between both the positive and negative group. We found that there was no difference in the analgesic response to the second treatment between the two groups. Our data indicate that a change in administration route might reduce the influence of treatment history and therefore be a way to reduce negative carry-over effects after treatment failure. Future studies will have to validate these findings in a fully balanced design including larger, clinical samples.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document