Virginia Wang1,2,3, Cynthia J Coffman3,4, Linda L Sanders2, Abby Hoffman1,5, Caroline E Sloan2,3, Shoou-Yih D Lee6, Richard A Hirth6, Matthew L Maciejewski1,2,3. 1. Departments of Population Health Sciences. 2. Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine. 3. Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 6. Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to have lower or equivalent mortality to patients who receive in-center hemodialysis (HD). Medicare's 2011 bundled dialysis prospective payment system encouraged expansion of home-based PD with unclear impacts on patient outcomes. This paper revisits the comparative risk of mortality between HD and PD among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis in 2006-2013. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 2-year all-cause mortality among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis via HD and PD in 2006-2013, using data from the US Renal Data System and Medicare. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models fit with inverse probability of treatment weighting that adjusted for measured patient demographic and clinical characteristics and dialysis market characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 449,652 patients starting dialysis between 2006 and 2013, the rate of PD use in the first 90 days increased from 9.3% of incident patients in 2006 to 14.2% in 2013. Crude 2-year mortality was 27.6% for patients dialyzing via HD and 16.7% for patients on PD. In adjusted models, there was no evidence of mortality differences between PD and HD before and after bundled payment (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.04; P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mortality for HD and PD use was similar and mortality differences between modalities did not change before versus after the 2011 Medicare dialysis bundled payment, suggesting that increased use of home-based PD did not adversely impact patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to have lower or equivalent mortality to patients who receive in-center hemodialysis (HD). Medicare's 2011 bundled dialysis prospective payment system encouraged expansion of home-based PD with unclear impacts on patient outcomes. This paper revisits the comparative risk of mortality between HD and PD among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis in 2006-2013. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 2-year all-cause mortality among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis via HD and PD in 2006-2013, using data from the US Renal Data System and Medicare. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models fit with inverse probability of treatment weighting that adjusted for measured patient demographic and clinical characteristics and dialysis market characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 449,652 patients starting dialysis between 2006 and 2013, the rate of PD use in the first 90 days increased from 9.3% of incident patients in 2006 to 14.2% in 2013. Crude 2-year mortality was 27.6% for patients dialyzing via HD and 16.7% for patients on PD. In adjusted models, there was no evidence of mortality differences between PD and HD before and after bundled payment (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.04; P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mortality for HD and PD use was similar and mortality differences between modalities did not change before versus after the 2011 Medicare dialysis bundled payment, suggesting that increased use of home-based PD did not adversely impact patient outcomes.
Authors: Virginia Wang; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Uptal D Patel; Matthew L Maciejewski; Thomas C Ricketts Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Philip Kam-Tao Li; Kai Ming Chow; Moniek W M Van de Luijtgaarden; David W Johnson; Kitty J Jager; Rajnish Mehrotra; Sarala Naicker; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Xue Qing Yu; Norbert Lameire Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Daniel J Devoe; Ben Wong; Matthew T James; Pietro Ravani; Matthew J Oliver; Lianne Barnieh; Derek J Roberts; Robert Pauly; Braden J Manns; Joanne Kappel; Robert R Quinn Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Rachael C Walker; Rachael L Morton; Suetonia C Palmer; Mark R Marshall; Allison Tong; Kirsten Howard Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Maatla Tshimologo; Kerry Allen; David Coyle; Sarah Damery; Lisa Dikomitis; James Fotheringham; Harry Hill; Mark Lambie; Louise Phillips-Darby; Ivonne Solis-Trapala; Iestyn Williams; Simon J Davies Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 3.006