Survival on four compared with three times per week haemodialysis in high ultrafiltration patients: an observational study.
Détails
Télécharger: Fotheringham Survival on 4 compared with 3 times per week HD in high UF patients ARO cohort CKJ 2021.pdf (770.75 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Document(s) secondaire(s)
Télécharger: Fotheringham Survival on 4 compared with 3 times per week HD in high UF patients ARO cohort Suppl data CKJ 2021.pdf (235.99 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Supplementary document
Licence: Non spécifiée
Etat: Public
Version: Supplementary document
Licence: Non spécifiée
ID Serval
serval:BIB_55F692E2B47F
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Survival on four compared with three times per week haemodialysis in high ultrafiltration patients: an observational study.
Périodique
Clinical kidney journal
ISSN
2048-8505 (Print)
ISSN-L
2048-8505
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
02/2021
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
14
Numéro
2
Pages
665-672
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
The harm caused by the long interdialytic interval in three-times-per-week haemodialysis regimens (3×WHD) may relate to fluid accumulation and associated high ultrafiltration rate (UFR). Four-times-per-week haemodialysis (4×WHD) may offer a solution, but its impact on mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications is unknown.
From the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.
From 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.
This observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.
From the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.
From 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.
This observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.
Mots-clé
four-times-per-week haemodialysis, hospitalization, survival analysis, ultrafiltration, vascular access
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
01/03/2021 11:12
Dernière modification de la notice
18/10/2023 6:10