Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette1, Carmel M Hawley2, Elaine M Pascoe3, Christopher T Chan4, Philip A Clayton5, Kevan R Polkinghorne6, Neil Boudville7, Martine Leblanc8, David W Johnson9. 1. Department of Renal Medicine, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Medicine, Université de Montreal, Montreal, Canada; 2. Department of Renal Medicine, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Kidney Disease Research, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia; 3. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 4. Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 5. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 6. Department of Renal Medicine, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia; Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; and. 7. Department of Renal Medicine, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 8. Department of Medicine, Université de Montreal, Montreal, Canada; 9. Department of Renal Medicine, University of Queensland at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Kidney Disease Research, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia; david.johnson2@health.qld.gov.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Home dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model. RESULTS: The study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality. CONCLUSIONS: Home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Home dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model. RESULTS: The study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality. CONCLUSIONS: Home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.
Authors: Dorothea Nitsch; Retha Steenkamp; Charles R V Tomson; Paul Roderick; David Ansell; Mark S MacGregor Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Kirsten L Johansen; Rebecca Zhang; Yijian Huang; Shu-Cheng Chen; Christopher R Blagg; Alexander S Goldfarb-Rumyantzev; Chistopher D Hoy; Robert S Lockridge; Brent W Miller; Paul W Eggers; Nancy G Kutner Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Michael Walsh; Braden J Manns; Scott Klarenbach; Marcello Tonelli; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Bruce Culleton Journal: Hemodial Int Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Nikhil Shah; Frances Reintjes; Mark Courtney; Scott W Klarenbach; Feng Ye; Kara Schick-Makaroff; Kailash Jindal; Robert P Pauly Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Karthik K Tennankore; Jeffrey Perl; Joanne M Bargman; David W Johnson; Christopher T Chan Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2020-08-26