Pattharawin Pattharanitima1,2, Osama El Shamy3, Kinsuk Chauhan2, Aparna Saha4, Huei Hsun Wen2, Shuchita Sharma2, Jaime Uribarri2, Lili Chan2,4. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand. 2. Division of Nephrology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Charles Bronfman Institute of Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.
Abstract
Background: Accessibility to dialysis facilities plays a central role when deciding on a patient's long-term dialysis modality. Studies investigating the effect of distance to nearest dialysis-providing unit on modality choice have yielded conflicting results. We set out to investigate the association between patients' dialysis modality and both the driving and straight-line distances to the closest HD- and PD-providing units. Methods: All patients with ESKD who initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017, were 18-90 years old, and were on dialysis for ≥30 days were included. Patients in residence zip codes in nonconterminous United States or lived >90 miles from the nearest HD-providing unit were excluded. Results: A total of 102,247 patients in the United States initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017. Compared with patients on HD, patients on PD had longer driving distances to their nearest PD unit (4.4 versus 3.4 miles; P<0.001). Patients who lived >30 miles from the nearest HD unit were more likely to be on PD if the nearest PD unit was a distance equal to/less than that of the HD unit. PD utilization increased with increasing distance from patients' homes to the nearest HD unit. No change in this association was found regardless of if the PD unit was farther from/closer than the nearest HD unit. This association was not seen with straight-line distance analysis. Conclusions: With increasing distances from the nearest dialysis-providing units (HD or PD), PD utilization increased. Using driving distance rather than straight-line distance affects data analysis and outcomes. Increasing the number of PD units may have a limited effect on increasing PD utilization.
Background: Accessibility to dialysis facilities plays a central role when deciding on a patient's long-term dialysis modality. Studies investigating the effect of distance to nearest dialysis-providing unit on modality choice have yielded conflicting results. We set out to investigate the association between patients' dialysis modality and both the driving and straight-line distances to the closest HD- and PD-providing units. Methods: All patients with ESKD who initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017, were 18-90 years old, and were on dialysis for ≥30 days were included. Patients in residence zip codes in nonconterminous United States or lived >90 miles from the nearest HD-providing unit were excluded. Results: A total of 102,247 patients in the United States initiated in-center HD and PD in 2017. Compared with patients on HD, patients on PD had longer driving distances to their nearest PD unit (4.4 versus 3.4 miles; P<0.001). Patients who lived >30 miles from the nearest HD unit were more likely to be on PD if the nearest PD unit was a distance equal to/less than that of the HD unit. PD utilization increased with increasing distance from patients' homes to the nearest HD unit. No change in this association was found regardless of if the PD unit was farther from/closer than the nearest HD unit. This association was not seen with straight-line distance analysis. Conclusions: With increasing distances from the nearest dialysis-providing units (HD or PD), PD utilization increased. Using driving distance rather than straight-line distance affects data analysis and outcomes. Increasing the number of PD units may have a limited effect on increasing PD utilization.
Authors: Suma Prakash; Rick Coffin; Jesse Schold; Steven A Lewis; Douglas Gunzler; Susan Stark; Matthew Howard; Darlene Rodgers; Douglas Einstadter; Ashwini R Sehgal Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Rajiv Saran; Bruce Robinson; Kevin C Abbott; Jennifer Bragg-Gresham; Xiaoying Chen; Debbie Gipson; Haoyu Gu; Richard A Hirth; David Hutton; Yan Jin; Alissa Kapke; Vivian Kurtz; Yiting Li; Keith McCullough; Zubin Modi; Hal Morgenstern; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Jeffrey Pearson; Ronald Pisoni; Kaitlyn Repeck; Douglas E Schaubel; Ruth Shamraj; Diane Steffick; Megan Turf; Kenneth J Woodside; Jie Xiang; Maggie Yin; Xiaosong Zhang; Vahakn Shahinian Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Virginia Wang; Matthew L Maciejewski; Cynthia J Coffman; Linda L Sanders; Shoou-Yih Daniel Lee; Richard Hirth; Joseph Messana Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.402
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