Mark R Marshall1, Kevan R Polkinghorne2, Peter G Kerr3, Carmel M Hawley4, John W M Agar5, Stephen P McDonald6. 1. Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Renal Medicine, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand; Baxter Healthcare (Asia Pacific), Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: mrmarsh@woosh.co.nz. 2. Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 5. Renal Unit, Geelong Hospital, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 6. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive hemodialysis (HD) is characterized by increased frequency and/or session length compared to conventional HD. Previous analyses from Australia and New Zealand did not suggest benefit with intensive HD, although recent research suggests that relationships have changed. We present updated analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study using marginal structural modeling to adjust for changes in renal replacement modality and time-varying medical comorbid conditions. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults initiating renal replacement therapy since March 31, 1996, followed up through December 31, 2012; this analysis included 40,842 patients over 2,187,689 patient-months. PREDICTOR: Time-varying renal replacement modality: conventional facility HD (≤3 times per week, ≤6 hours per session), quasi-intensive facility HD (between conventional and intensive), intensive facility HD (≥5 times per week, any hours per session), conventional home HD, quasi-intensive home HD, intensive home HD, peritoneal dialysis, deceased donor kidney transplantation, and living donor kidney transplantation. OUTCOMES: Patient mortality, with a 3-month lag in primary analyses and 6- and 12-month lags in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Conventional facility HD was the reference group. Conventional home HD had a similar mortality risk. For quasi-intensive home HD, mortality risk was lower (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73). For intensive home HD, mortality risk was nonsignificantly lower in primary analyses and significantly lower using a 6-month lag (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85), but not using a 12-month lag. For quasi-intensive facility HD, mortality risk was nonsignificantly lower in primary analyses, although significantly lower using 6- (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85) and 12-month lags (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80). Mortality risk was similar between intensive and conventional facility HD. For peritoneal dialysis, mortality risk was greater than for conventional facility HD (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12). Kidney transplantation had the lowest mortality risk. LIMITATIONS: Potential residual confounding from limited collection of comorbid condition, socioeconomic, and medication data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an emerging HD dose-effect in Australia and New Zealand, with lower mortality risks associated with some of the more intensive HD regimens in these countries.
BACKGROUND: Intensive hemodialysis (HD) is characterized by increased frequency and/or session length compared to conventional HD. Previous analyses from Australia and New Zealand did not suggest benefit with intensive HD, although recent research suggests that relationships have changed. We present updated analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study using marginal structural modeling to adjust for changes in renal replacement modality and time-varying medical comorbid conditions. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults initiating renal replacement therapy since March 31, 1996, followed up through December 31, 2012; this analysis included 40,842 patients over 2,187,689 patient-months. PREDICTOR: Time-varying renal replacement modality: conventional facility HD (≤3 times per week, ≤6 hours per session), quasi-intensive facility HD (between conventional and intensive), intensive facility HD (≥5 times per week, any hours per session), conventional home HD, quasi-intensive home HD, intensive home HD, peritoneal dialysis, deceased donor kidney transplantation, and living donor kidney transplantation. OUTCOMES: Patient mortality, with a 3-month lag in primary analyses and 6- and 12-month lags in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Conventional facility HD was the reference group. Conventional home HD had a similar mortality risk. For quasi-intensive home HD, mortality risk was lower (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73). For intensive home HD, mortality risk was nonsignificantly lower in primary analyses and significantly lower using a 6-month lag (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85), but not using a 12-month lag. For quasi-intensive facility HD, mortality risk was nonsignificantly lower in primary analyses, although significantly lower using 6- (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85) and 12-month lags (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80). Mortality risk was similar between intensive and conventional facility HD. For peritoneal dialysis, mortality risk was greater than for conventional facility HD (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12). Kidney transplantation had the lowest mortality risk. LIMITATIONS: Potential residual confounding from limited collection of comorbid condition, socioeconomic, and medication data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an emerging HD dose-effect in Australia and New Zealand, with lower mortality risks associated with some of the more intensive HD regimens in these countries.
Authors: Damien Ashby; Natalie Borman; James Burton; Richard Corbett; Andrew Davenport; Ken Farrington; Katey Flowers; James Fotheringham; R N Andrea Fox; Gail Franklin; Claire Gardiner; R N Martin Gerrish; Sharlene Greenwood; Daljit Hothi; Abdul Khares; Pelagia Koufaki; Jeremy Levy; Elizabeth Lindley; Jamie Macdonald; Bruno Mafrici; Andrew Mooney; James Tattersall; Kay Tyerman; Enric Villar; Martin Wilkie Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Karthik K Tennankore; Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Kara Matheson; Christopher T Chan; Emilie Trinh; Jeffrey Perl Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: Mark R Marshall; Alain C Vandal; Janak R de Zoysa; Ruvin S Gabriel; Imad A Haloob; Christopher J Hood; John H Irvine; Philip J Matheson; David O R McGregor; Kannaiyan S Rabindranath; John B W Schollum; David J Semple; Zhengxiu Xie; Tian Min Ma; Rose Sisk; Joanna L Dunlop Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: James Fotheringham; Ayesha Sajjad; Vianda S Stel; Keith McCullough; Angelo Karaboyas; Martin Wilkie; Brian Bieber; Bruce M Robinson; Ziad A Massy; Kitty J Jager Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Mark R Marshall; Chun-Yuan Hsiao; Philip K Li; Masaaki Nakayama; S Rabindranath; Rachael C Walker; Xueqing Yu; Suetonia C Palmer Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-19