Resumen
Home hemodialysis (HHD) has many benefits, but less is known about relative outcomes when comparing different home-based hemodialysis modalities. Here, we compare patient and treatment survival for patients receiving short daily HHD (2-3 hours/5 plus sessions per week), nocturnal HHD (6-8 hours/5 plus sessions per week) and conventional HHD (3-6 hours/2-4 sessions per week). A nationally representative cohort of Canadian HHD patients from 1996-2012 was studied. The primary outcome was death or treatment failure (defined as a permanent return to in-center hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) using an intention to treat analysis and death-censored treatment failure as a secondary outcome. The cohort consisted of 600, 508 and 202 patients receiving conventional, nocturnal, and short daily HHD, respectively. Conventional-HHD patients were more likely to use dialysis catheter access (43%) versus nocturnal or short daily HHD (32% and 31%, respectively). Although point estimates were in favor of both therapies, after multivariable adjustment for patient and center factors, there was no statistically significant reduction in the relative hazard for the death/treatment failure composite comparing nocturnal to conventional HHD (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.66-1.03]) or short daily to conventional HHD (0.84, 0.63-1.12). Among those with information on vascular access, patients receiving nocturnal HHD had a relative improvement in death-censored treatment survival (0.75, 0.57-0.98). Thus, in this national cohort of HHD patients, those receiving short daily and nocturnal HHD had similar patient/treatment survival compared with patients receiving conventional HHD.
Idioma original | English |
---|---|
Páginas (desde-hasta) | 188-194 |
Número de páginas | 7 |
Publicación | Kidney International |
Volumen | 93 |
N.º | 1 |
DOI | |
Estado | Published - ene. 2018 |
Nota bibliográfica
Funding Information:JP has received speaking honoraria from Baxter Healthcare, Amgen Canada, and DaVita Health Partners and receives consulting fees from Amgen Canada, Baxter Healthcare, Otsuka, Janssen Ortho Shire, and Takeda. JP has research support from Baxter Healthcare and salary support from Arbor Research Collaborative for Health. All the other authors declared no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 International Society of Nephrology
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Nephrology