Patrick G Lan1, Philip A Clayton2, John Saunders1, Kevan R Polkinghorne3, Paul L Snelling1. 1. Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. 2. Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation (ANZDATA) Registry, Adelaide, Australia School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Southern Health, Clayton, Australia Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are commonly required to transfer to hemodialysis (HD), however the literature describing the outcomes of such transfers is limited. The aim of our study was to describe the predictors of these transfers and their outcomes according to vascular access at the time of transfer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using registry data of all adult patients commencing PD as their initial renal replacement therapy in Australia or New Zealand between 2004 - 2010 was performed. Follow-up was until 31 December 2010. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine possible predictors of transfer within both 6 and 12 months of PD commencement. Cox analysis and competing risks regression were used to determine the predictors of survival and transplantation post-transfer. RESULTS: The analysis included 4,781 incident PD patients, of whom 1,699 transferred to HD during the study period. Logistic models did not identify any clinically useful predictors of transfer within 6 or 12 months (c-statistics 0.54 and 0.55 respectively). 67% of patients commenced HD with a central venous catheter (CVC). CVC use at transfer was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 - 1.68, p = 0.003) and a borderline significant reduction in the incidence of transplantation (subhazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 - 1.00, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to predict the transfer to HD for incident PD patients. PD patients who commence HD with a CVC have a higher risk of mortality and a lower likelihood of undergoing renal transplantation.
INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are commonly required to transfer to hemodialysis (HD), however the literature describing the outcomes of such transfers is limited. The aim of our study was to describe the predictors of these transfers and their outcomes according to vascular access at the time of transfer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using registry data of all adult patients commencing PD as their initial renal replacement therapy in Australia or New Zealand between 2004 - 2010 was performed. Follow-up was until 31 December 2010. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine possible predictors of transfer within both 6 and 12 months of PD commencement. Cox analysis and competing risks regression were used to determine the predictors of survival and transplantation post-transfer. RESULTS: The analysis included 4,781 incident PDpatients, of whom 1,699 transferred to HD during the study period. Logistic models did not identify any clinically useful predictors of transfer within 6 or 12 months (c-statistics 0.54 and 0.55 respectively). 67% of patients commenced HD with a central venous catheter (CVC). CVC use at transfer was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 - 1.68, p = 0.003) and a borderline significant reduction in the incidence of transplantation (subhazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 - 1.00, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to predict the transfer to HD for incident PDpatients. PDpatients who commence HD with a CVC have a higher risk of mortality and a lower likelihood of undergoing renal transplantation.
Authors: Neil Boudville; Anna Kemp; Philip Clayton; Wai Lim; Sunil V Badve; Carmel M Hawley; Stephen P McDonald; Kathryn J Wiggins; Kym M Bannister; Fiona G Brown; David W Johnson Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: K J Jager; M P Merkus; F W Dekker; E W Boeschoten; J G Tijssen; P Stevens; W J Bos; R T Krediet Journal: Kidney Int Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Mala Chidambaram; Joanne M Bargman; Robert R Quinn; Peter C Austin; Janet E Hux; Andreas Laupacis Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Bernard Descoeudres; Michael T Koller; Daniela Garzoni; Thomas Wolff; Juerg Steiger; Stefan Schaub; Michael Mayr Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Rita L McGill; Daniel E Weiner; Robin Ruthazer; Dana C Miskulin; Klemens B Meyer; Eduardo Lacson Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Nidhi Sukul; Mark Lambie; Jeffrey Perl; Simon Davies; David W Johnson; Bruce Robinson; Wim Van Biesen; Anneke Kramer; Kitty J Jager; Rajiv Saran; Ronald Pisoni; Christopher T Chan Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Patrick G Lan; Philip A Clayton; David W Johnson; Stephen P McDonald; Monique Borlace; Sunil V Badve; Kamal Sud; Neil Boudville Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Carmel Hawley; Elaine Pascoe; Christopher T Chan; Martine Leblanc; Philip A Clayton; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Neil Boudville; David W Johnson Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Aminu K Bello; Ikechi G Okpechi; Mohamed A Osman; Yeoungjee Cho; Brett Cullis; Htay Htay; Vivekanand Jha; Muhammad A Makusidi; Mignon McCulloch; Nikhil Shah; Marina Wainstein; David W Johnson Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 42.439