BACKGROUND: The impact of dialyzer reuse on the mortality of hemodialysis patients is debated. This study assesses reuse-associated mortality across US dialysis provider systems (for-profit, not-for-profit; hospital-based, and freestanding units) in incident patients. METHODS: Incident Medicare hemodialysis patients who initiated dialysis therapy from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001, were included and followed up to December 31, 2002. A 3-month entry period was used to determine comorbidity and disease severity. Applying various analytic approaches, mortality rates for patients treated with reused (or reprocessed) or single-use dialyzers were compared. Because of differences among dialysis units, facility clustering was addressed. RESULTS: Of 75,831 patients, 61,391 patients (81.0%) were classified as on reuse, and 14,440 patients (19.0%), as on single use, as of the start of follow-up. The overall mortality rate was 25.0/100 patient-years. No difference in mortality risk was found between patients treated with reuse compared with single use in an intent-to-treat approach (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.02; P = 0.266) after adjusting for chain affiliation, for-profit status, year of dialysis inception, age, sex, race, renal diagnosis, comorbidity, and hospitalization days. Findings were similar in an as-treated approach (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.01; P = 0.136). No survival advantage associated with single use was found for subgroups. CONCLUSION: No overall survival advantage or disadvantage is associated with dialyzer reuse compared with single use in incident hemodialysis patients in the United States; however, continued monitoring is advised.
BACKGROUND: The impact of dialyzer reuse on the mortality of hemodialysis patients is debated. This study assesses reuse-associated mortality across US dialysis provider systems (for-profit, not-for-profit; hospital-based, and freestanding units) in incident patients. METHODS: Incident Medicare hemodialysis patients who initiated dialysis therapy from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001, were included and followed up to December 31, 2002. A 3-month entry period was used to determine comorbidity and disease severity. Applying various analytic approaches, mortality rates for patients treated with reused (or reprocessed) or single-use dialyzers were compared. Because of differences among dialysis units, facility clustering was addressed. RESULTS: Of 75,831 patients, 61,391 patients (81.0%) were classified as on reuse, and 14,440 patients (19.0%), as on single use, as of the start of follow-up. The overall mortality rate was 25.0/100 patient-years. No difference in mortality risk was found between patients treated with reuse compared with single use in an intent-to-treat approach (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.02; P = 0.266) after adjusting for chain affiliation, for-profit status, year of dialysis inception, age, sex, race, renal diagnosis, comorbidity, and hospitalization days. Findings were similar in an as-treated approach (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.01; P = 0.136). No survival advantage associated with single use was found for subgroups. CONCLUSION: No overall survival advantage or disadvantage is associated with dialyzer reuse compared with single use in incident hemodialysis patients in the United States; however, continued monitoring is advised.
Authors: T Christopher Bond; Allen R Nissenson; Mahesh Krishnan; Steven M Wilson; Tracy Mayne Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 8.237