Patient Survival Between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Among End-Stage Renal Disease Patients Secondary to Myeloperoxidase-ANCA-Associated Vasculitis

BackgroundA significant proportion of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated glomerulonephritis eventually progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) thus requiring long-term dialysis. There is no consensus about which dialysis modality is more recommended for those patients with associated vasculitis (AAV-ESRD). The primary objective of this study was to compare patient survival in patients with AAV-ESRD treated with hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD).MethodsThis double-center retrospective cohort study included dialysis-dependent patients who were treated with HD or PD. Clinical data were collected under standard format. The Birmingham vasculitis activity score (BVAS) was used to evaluate disease activity at diagnosis and organ damage was assessed using the vasculitis damage index (VDI) at dialysis initiation.ResultsIn total, 85 patients were included: 64 with hemodialysis and 21 with peritoneal dialysis. The patients with AAV-PD were much younger than the AAV-HD patients (48 vs. 62, P < 0.01) and more were female (76.2 vs. 51.6%, P = 0.05). The laboratory data were almost similar. The comorbidities, VDI score, and immuno-suppressive therapy at dialysis initiation were almost no statistical difference. Patient survival rates between HD and PD at 1 year were 65.3 vs. 90% (P = 0.062), 3 year were 59.6 vs. 90% (P < 0.001), and 5 years were 59.6 vs. 67.5% (P = 0.569). The overall survival was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.086) and the dialysis modality (HD or PD) was not shown to be an independent predictor for all-cause death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–1.7; P = 0.473). Cardio-cerebrovascular events were the main cause of death among AAV-HD patients while infection in patients with AAV-PD.ConclusionThese results provide real-world data that the use of either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis modality does not affect patient survival for patients with AAV-ESRD who need long-term dialysis.

Dialysis Outcomes in a Middle-Income Country: An Updated Comparison of Patient Mortality between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Comparisons of survival between dialysis modalities is of great importance to patients with kidney failure, their families, and healthcare systems. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study’s objective was to compare mortality of patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) and identify variables associated with mortality. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This retrospective cohort study included adult incident patients with kidney failure treated with HD or PD by the Baxter Renal Care Services network in Colombia. The study was conducted between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (recruitment period), with follow-up until December 31, 2018. The outcome was the cumulative mortality rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Propensity score matching (PSM) and the Gompertz parametric survival model were used to compare mortality in HD versus PD. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The analysis included 12,499 patients, of whom 57.4% were on PD at inception. The overall mortality rate was 14.0 events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.61–14.42). Using an intention-to-treat approach, crude mortality rates were significantly lower in patients receiving HD (HD: 12.3 deaths per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 11.7–12.8] vs. PD: 15.5 [14.9–16.1], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). Using a Gompertz parametric survival model, dialysis modality was not significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio HD vs. PD 1.0, 95% CI, 0.9–1.1). After PSM, the mortality cumulative incidence functions between HD and PD were not statistically significantly different (<i>p</i> = 0.88). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The present study in a large cohort of incident dialysis patients with at least 5 years follow-up and using PSM methods showed no differences in cumulative mortality between HD and PD patients. This evidence from a middle-income country may facilitate the process of dialysis modality selection globally.

The association between prevalence of peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis and patients' distance to dialysis-providing facilities

Background: Accessibility to dialysis facilities plays a central role when deciding on a patient's long-term dialysis modality. Studies investigating the effect of distance to nearest dialysis-providing unit on modality choice have yielded conflicting results. We set out to investigate the association between patients' dialysis modality and both the driving and straight-line distances to the closest HD- and PD-providing units. Methods: All end stage kidney disease patients who initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017, 18-90 years old, and on dialysis for ≥30 days were included. Patients in residence zip codes in non-conterminous United States or lived >90 miles from the nearest HD-providing unit were excluded. Results: 102,247 patients in the United States initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017. Compared to HD patients, PD patients had longer driving distances to their nearest PD unit (4.4 vs 3.4 miles; p <0.001). Patients who lived >30 miles from the nearest HD unit were more likely to be on PD if the nearest PD unit was a distance equal to/less than the HD unit. PD utilization increased with increasing distance from patients' homes to the nearest HD unit. No change in this association was found regardless of if the PD unit was farther/closer than the nearest HD unit. This association was not seen with straight line distance analysis. Conclusions: With increasing distances from the nearest dialysis providing units (HD or PD), PD utilization increased. Using driving distance rather than straight line distance affects data analysis and outcomes. Increasing the number of PD units may have a limited impact on increasing PD utilization.

Survival analysis in the incident dialysis patients by different modalities

Background: To analysis survival in onset uremic patients who initiating HD or PD dialysis in our dialysis center. Methods: Between Jan. 2015 and June. 2018, patients with onset uremia and initiating planned-start dialysis were retrospectively enrolled in this study and followed up to January, 2019. The relationships between the types of dialysis modality and patient prognosis were assessed. Results: A total of 460 patients were included in the final analysis. Of which, 213 patient (46.30%) undergoing PD and 247 patients (53.70%) undergoing HD with arteriovenous fistula. The average follow-up time was 27.9 months. Eighty-seven (18.91%) patients died during the study period. The all-cause mortality was 127 per 1000 person-year. It was 102 per 1000 person-year in the HD group and 171 per 1000 person-year in the PD group ( p < 0.01). However, dialysis modality was not an independent predictor for survival. During the first year after dialysis initiation, patient survival was comparable between the PD and HD groups (log-rank p = 0.14). As the dialysis age increased over 1 year, HD patients seemed to have a better survival as compared to that of PD patient (log-rank p < 0.05), especially those older than 65 years and without DN. Conclusions: Though dialysis modality was not an independent factor for overall survival, HD therapy seemed to be more suitable for patients without DN.

The Association of Pre-Kidney Transplant Dialysis Modality with de novo Posttransplant Heart Failure

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Heart failure (HF) after kidney transplantation is a significant but understudied problem. Pretransplant dialysis modality could influence incident HF risk through differing cardiac stressors. However, whether pretransplant dialysis modality is associated with the development of posttransplant HF is unknown. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We used the US Renal Data System to assemble a cohort of 27,701 patients who underwent their first kidney transplant in the USA between the years 2005 and 2012 and who had Medicare fee-for-service coverage for &#x3e;6 months preceding their transplant date. Patients with any HF diagnosis prior to transplant were excluded. Detailed baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities were abstracted. The outcome of interest was de novo posttransplant HF. Pretransplant dialysis modality was defined as the dialysis modality used at the time of transplant. We conducted time-to-event analyses using Cox regression. Death was treated as a competing risk in the study’s primary analysis. Graft failure was included as a time-varying covariate. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Among eligible patients, 81% were treated with hemodialysis prior to transplant, and hemodialysis patients were more likely to be male, had a shorter dialysis vintage, and had more diabetes and vascular disease diagnoses. When adjusted for all available demographic and clinical data, pretransplant treatment with hemodialysis (vs. peritoneal dialysis) was associated with a 19% increased risk in de novo posttransplant HF, with sub-distribution HR 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09–1.29). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our results suggest that choice of pretransplant dialysis modality may impact the development of posttransplant HF.

Barriers and opportunities to increase PD incidence and prevalence: Lessons from a European Survey

Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains underutilised and unplanned start of dialysis further diminishes the likelihood of patients starting on PD, although outcomes are equal to haemodialysis (HD). Methods: A survey was sent to members of EuroPD and regional societies presenting a case vignette of a 48-year-old woman not previously known to the nephrology department and who arrives at the emergency department with established end-stage kidney disease (unplanned start), asking which dialysis modality would most likely be chosen at their respective centre. We assessed associations between the modality choices for this case vignette and centre characteristics and PD-related practices. Results: Of 575 respondents, 32.8%, 32.2% and 35.0% indicated they would start unplanned PD, unplanned HD or unplanned HD with intention to educate patient on PD later, respectively. Likelihood for unplanned start of PD was only associated with quality of structure of the pre-dialysis program. Structure of pre-dialysis education program, PD program in general, likelihood to provide education on PD to unplanned starters, good collaboration with the PD access team and taking initiatives to enhance home-based therapies increased the likelihood unplanned patients would end up on PD. Conclusions: Well-structured pre-dialysis education on PD as a modality, good connections to dedicated PD catheter placement teams and additional initiatives to enhance home-based therapies are key to grow PD programs. Centres motivated to grow their PD programs seem to find solutions to do so.

Effect of dialysis modality on the survival of end-stage renal disease patients starting dialysis in Sabah from 2007 to 2017: a retrospective cohort study

Background: The effect of dialysis modality on the survival of end-stage renal disease patients is a major public health interest. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all adult end-stage renal disease patients receiving dialysis treatment in Sabah between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 as identified from the Malaysian Dialysis and Transplant Registry were evaluated and followed up through December 31, 2018. The endpoint was all-cause mortality. The observation time was defined as the time from the date of dialysis initiation after the onset of end-stage renal disease to whichever of the following that came first: date of death, date of transplantation, date of last follow-up, date of recovered kidney function, or December 31, 2018. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the effect of dialysis modality. Analyses were restricted to patients with complete data on all variables. Results: 1,837 patients began hemodialysis and 156 patients started with peritoneal dialysis, yielding 7,548.10 (potential median 5.48 years/person) and 747.98 (potential median 5.68 years/person) person-years of observation. 3.1% of patients were lost to follow-up. The median survival time was 5.8 years (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 6.3) among patients who started on hemodialysis and 7.0 years (95% confidence interval: 5.9, indeterminate) among those who started on peritoneal dialysis. The effect of dialysis modality was not significant after controlling for confounders. The average hazard ratio was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.61, 1.05) with hemodialysis as a reference. Conclusion: There was no evidence of a difference in mortality between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

Home-to-home dialysis transition: A 24-year single-centre experience

Home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HHD)) are ideal options for kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Occasionally, because of technique failure, patients are required to transition out of home dialysis, and the most common option tends to be to in-centre HD. There are few published studies on home-to-home transition (PD to HHD or HHD to PD) and dynamics during the transition period. We present a retrospective review of 28 patients who transitioned from a home-to-home dialysis modality at our centre over a 24-year period. We observed a total of 911 home dialysis patients with technique failure (826 PD patients and 85 HHD patients) with only 28 patients (3% of the total with technique failure) having successful home-to-home transition. During the transition period, 11 patients (39%) were hospitalized and 13 patients (46%) required variable periods of in-centre HD. After a median follow-up of 48 months following dialysis modality transition, four patients switched to in-centre HD permanently (home dialysis technique survival of 86% censored for death and kidney transplantation) and four patients died resulting in a patient survival of 86% (censored for switch to in-centre HD and transplantation). In our centre, home-to-home transition is a feasible strategy with comparable patient and technique survival. A significant proportion of patients switching from a home-to-home dialysis modality required variable intervals of hospitalization and in-centre HD during transitions. Future efforts should be directed towards assessment and home dialysis education during the entire process of dialysis transition.

Factors Affecting Choosing Peritoneal Dialysis Modality among Hemodialysis Patients in Single Center Study, Taif region, KSA

Background: Renal replacement care of choices for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients include chronic dialysis either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation, the vast majority of patients use hemodialysis (HD) rather than peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods: This is a single center cross sectional observational study in the King Abdul-Aziz Specialist Hospital, Taif, Saudi Arabia. The study was conducted from 20 October 2020 to 20 July 2021. The participants 135 patients, A survey was prepared by specialized authors, and self-answered by hemodialysis patients after informed consent was approved by the participants to complete the survey. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 21. Result: Factors affecting choosing Peritoneal Dialysis modality among Hemodialysis patients in a single center among Saudi population were analyzed in the total number of cases 135 including 52% are males, 47.9% are females, presence of chronic diseases among our cases Hypertension, followed by Diabetes were the most important causes for the etiology of chronic kidney disease in (51%, 33.3%), peritoneal dialysis was discussed with the majority of cases (59.4%), The higher percentage of our participants deny any mental illness, eye disease, hernia or abdominal surgery or ischemic bowel disease.if PD modality was discussed with them and correlated with reasons for not picking PD, this was statistically significant proved by Pearson Chi square test with Confidence interval 95%, P value <0.05. Conclusion: This study indicates that the cardinal patients' characteristics of young age, single, being ambulant, if PD was discussed with the patient are among the factors influencing choosing peritoneal dialysis among haemodialysis patients.