Chun-yan Su1, Xin-hong Lu1, Tao Wang2. 1. Division of Nephrology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Division of Nephrology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China wangt@bjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: ♦ BACKGROUND: Cost is always a big issue for dialysis patients. In the present study, we analyzed the effect of different payment schemes on dialysis adequacy and clinical outcome in our peritoneal dialysis program. ♦ METHODS: This is a single-center cohort study. A total of 175 patients who began dialysis from January 2006 to December 2007 were included. Baseline data, including volume status, dietary intake and nutrition status, dialysis adequacy, and sodium removal were collected at 6 months after peritoneal dialysis. Based on the different payment schemes, the patients were divided into 2 groups, higher payment group (GHP, 130 cases, with more than 85% reimbursement), and lower payment group (GLP, 45 cases, with less than 50% payment or totally self-paid). Patients were followed up until dropout or until December 31, 2013. ♦ RESULTS: At baseline, patients in the 2 groups had nearly the same residual renal function. But the GLP group patients dialyzed at a lower dose (4,516.91 ± 1,768.20 mL vs 6,058.17 ± 2,013.43 mL, p < 0.001). They had lower creatinine clearance (51.64 ± 24.23 L/w vs 70.54 ± 30.27 L/w, p < 0.001), sodium removal (2.23 ± 1.29 g vs 2.77 ± 1.29 g, p = 0.027), and fluid removal (970.33 ± 545.97 mL vs 1,146.66 ± 460.93 mL, p = 0.038). Normalized by height (in meters), the GLP group patients still had a lower normalized dialysis dose (2,890.61 ± 1084.44 mL/m vs 3,761.34 ± 1,237.10 mL/m, p < 0.001). Baseline nutritional and dietary parameters were comparable except that a lower daily protein intake (42.73 ± 10.99 g vs 47.26 ± 14.30 g, p = 0.032) and higher serum urea level (23.43 ± 6.88 mmol/L vs 19.84 ± 5.92 mmol/L, p < 0.001) were presented in the GLP group. There was no difference in volume status. During the follow-up, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was no significant difference in patient survival and technique survival. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for related factors, payment was again not a strong predictor of survival in the study population. ♦ CONCLUSION: Our study found that GLP group patients were adherent to lifestyle modification with lower dialysis doses, and they also had nearly the same long-term clinical outcome as the GHP group patients. Thus, lower dialysis doses combined with controlled dietary intake may be an effective approach to solve the dialysis problem for the low socio-economic status (SES) population.
UNLABELLED: ♦ BACKGROUND: Cost is always a big issue for dialysis patients. In the present study, we analyzed the effect of different payment schemes on dialysis adequacy and clinical outcome in our peritoneal dialysis program. ♦ METHODS: This is a single-center cohort study. A total of 175 patients who began dialysis from January 2006 to December 2007 were included. Baseline data, including volume status, dietary intake and nutrition status, dialysis adequacy, and sodium removal were collected at 6 months after peritoneal dialysis. Based on the different payment schemes, the patients were divided into 2 groups, higher payment group (GHP, 130 cases, with more than 85% reimbursement), and lower payment group (GLP, 45 cases, with less than 50% payment or totally self-paid). Patients were followed up until dropout or until December 31, 2013. ♦ RESULTS: At baseline, patients in the 2 groups had nearly the same residual renal function. But the GLP group patients dialyzed at a lower dose (4,516.91 ± 1,768.20 mL vs 6,058.17 ± 2,013.43 mL, p < 0.001). They had lower creatinine clearance (51.64 ± 24.23 L/w vs 70.54 ± 30.27 L/w, p < 0.001), sodium removal (2.23 ± 1.29 g vs 2.77 ± 1.29 g, p = 0.027), and fluid removal (970.33 ± 545.97 mL vs 1,146.66 ± 460.93 mL, p = 0.038). Normalized by height (in meters), the GLP group patients still had a lower normalized dialysis dose (2,890.61 ± 1084.44 mL/m vs 3,761.34 ± 1,237.10 mL/m, p < 0.001). Baseline nutritional and dietary parameters were comparable except that a lower daily protein intake (42.73 ± 10.99 g vs 47.26 ± 14.30 g, p = 0.032) and higher serum urea level (23.43 ± 6.88 mmol/L vs 19.84 ± 5.92 mmol/L, p < 0.001) were presented in the GLP group. There was no difference in volume status. During the follow-up, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was no significant difference in patient survival and technique survival. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for related factors, payment was again not a strong predictor of survival in the study population. ♦ CONCLUSION: Our study found that GLP group patients were adherent to lifestyle modification with lower dialysis doses, and they also had nearly the same long-term clinical outcome as the GHP group patients. Thus, lower dialysis doses combined with controlled dietary intake may be an effective approach to solve the dialysis problem for the low socio-economic status (SES) population.
Authors: G A Young; J D Kopple; B Lindholm; E F Vonesh; A De Vecchi; A Scalamogna; C Castelnova; D G Oreopoulos; G H Anderson; J Bergstrom Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 8.860