Abstract
There remains debate on which dialysis modality offers better survival outcomes for patients. We compare the survival of patients undergoing home haemodialysis (HD) with a permanent vascular access, facility HD with a permanent vascular access, facility HD with a central venous catheter or peritoneal dialysis. We considered adult patients from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry who commenced dialysis between 1 October 2003 and 31 December 2011. Patients were followed until death, transplant, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2011. Marginal structural models for mortality were used to account for time-varying treatment, comorbidities and baseline covariates. Unmeasured differences between treatment groups may remain even after adjustment for measured differences, so the potential effects of unmeasured confounding were explicitly modelled. There were 20,191 patients who underwent ≥90 days of dialysis (median 2.25 years, interquartile range 1-3.75 years). There were significant differences in age, gender, comorbidities and other variables between treatment groups at baseline. Thirty per cent of patients had at least one treatment change. Relative to facility HD with permanent access, the risk of death for home HD patients with a permanent access was lower in the first year (at 9 months: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.67, adjusted for all baseline covariates). Findings were robust to unmeasured confounding within plausible ranges. Relative to facility HD with permanent vascular access, home HD conferred better survival prospects, while peritoneal dialysis was associated with a higher risk and facility HD with a catheter the highest risk, especially within the first year of dialysis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.