Lucile Mercadal1, Jeanna-Eve Franck2, Marie Metzger3, Pablo Urena Torres4, François de Cornelissen5, Stéphane Edet6, Clémence Béchade7, Cécile Vigneau8, Tilman Drüeke3, Christian Jacquelinet9, Bénédicte Stengel3. 1. Department of Nephrology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Pitié Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris, France; INSERM UMRS-1018, CESP Team 5 (Renal and Cardiovascular Epidemiology), Villejuif, France; Paris Sud University, Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Versailles, France. Electronic address: lucile.mercadal@aphp.fr. 2. INSERM UMRS-1018, CESP Team 5 (Renal and Cardiovascular Epidemiology), Villejuif, France. 3. INSERM UMRS-1018, CESP Team 5 (Renal and Cardiovascular Epidemiology), Villejuif, France; Paris Sud University, Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Versailles, France. 4. Clinique du Landy, Saint Ouen, France. 5. Nephrology Department, Narbonne Polyclinic, Narbonne, France. 6. Nephrology Department, Dieppe Hospital, Dieppe, France. 7. Nephrology Department, Caen Hospital, Caen, France. 8. Nephrology Department, Pontchaillou Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France. 9. INSERM UMRS-1018, CESP Team 5 (Renal and Cardiovascular Epidemiology), Villejuif, France; Paris Sud University, Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Versailles Saint-Quentin University, Versailles, France; Biomedicine Agency, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials report that mortality is lower with high-convection-volume hemodiafiltration (HDF) than with hemodialysis (HD). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the French national Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry to investigate trends in HDF use and its relationship with mortality in the total population of incident dialysis patients. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The study included those who initiated HD therapy from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011, and were dialyzed for more than 3 months; follow-up extended to the end of 2012. FACTOR: HDF use at the patient and facility level. OUTCOMES: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, using Cox models to estimate HRs of HDF as time-dependent covariate at the patient level, with age as time scale and fully adjusted for comorbid conditions and laboratory data at baseline, catheter use, and facility type as time-dependent covariates. Analyses completed by Cox models for HRs of the facility-level exposure to HDF updated yearly. RESULTS: Of 28,407 HD patients, 5,526 used HDF for a median of 1.2 (IQR, 0.9-1.9) years; 2,254 of them used HDF exclusively. HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with HDF use were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.88), respectively. In patients treated exclusively with HDF, these HRs were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86). At the facility level, increasing the percentage of patients using HDF from 0% to 100% was associated with HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Observational study. CONCLUSIONS: Whether analyzed as a patient- or facility-level predictor, HDF treatment was associated with better survival.
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials report that mortality is lower with high-convection-volume hemodiafiltration (HDF) than with hemodialysis (HD). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the French national Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry to investigate trends in HDF use and its relationship with mortality in the total population of incident dialysis patients. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The study included those who initiated HD therapy from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011, and were dialyzed for more than 3 months; follow-up extended to the end of 2012. FACTOR: HDF use at the patient and facility level. OUTCOMES: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, using Cox models to estimate HRs of HDF as time-dependent covariate at the patient level, with age as time scale and fully adjusted for comorbid conditions and laboratory data at baseline, catheter use, and facility type as time-dependent covariates. Analyses completed by Cox models for HRs of the facility-level exposure to HDF updated yearly. RESULTS: Of 28,407 HDpatients, 5,526 used HDF for a median of 1.2 (IQR, 0.9-1.9) years; 2,254 of them used HDF exclusively. HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with HDF use were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.88), respectively. In patients treated exclusively with HDF, these HRs were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86). At the facility level, increasing the percentage of patients using HDF from 0% to 100% was associated with HRs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Observational study. CONCLUSIONS: Whether analyzed as a patient- or facility-level predictor, HDF treatment was associated with better survival.
Authors: Francesco Locatelli; Angelo Karaboyas; Ronald L Pisoni; Bruce M Robinson; Joan Fort; Raymond Vanholder; Hugh C Rayner; Werner Kleophas; Stefan H Jacobson; Christian Combe; Friedrich K Port; Francesca Tentori Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: James R Smith; Norica Zimmer; Elizabeth Bell; Bernard G Francq; Alex McConnachie; Robert Mactier Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ayşe Ağbaş; Nur Canpolat; Salim Çalışkan; Alev Yılmaz; Hakan Ekmekçi; Mark Mayes; Helen Aitkenhead; Franz Schaefer; Lale Sever; Rukshana Shroff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 3.240