The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis

Rita S Suri, Lihua Li, Gihad E Nesrallah, Rita S Suri, Lihua Li, Gihad E Nesrallah

Abstract

While home dialysis is being promoted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies of home-based modalities to guide patient decisions. To address this, we matched 1116 daily home hemodialysis (DHD) patients by propensity scores to 2784 contemporaneous USRDS patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis (PD), and compared hospitalization rates from cardiovascular, infectious, access-related or bleeding causes (prespecified composite), and modality failure risk. We performed similar analyses for 1187 DHD patients matched to 3173 USRDS patients receiving in-center conventional hemodialysis (CHD). The composite hospitalization rate was significantly lower with DHD than with PD (0.93 vs. 1.35/patient-year, hazard ratio=0.73 (95% CI=0.67-0.79)). DHD patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital than PD patients (5.2 vs. 9.2 days/patient-year), and significantly more DHD patients remained admission-free (52% DHD vs. 32% PD). In contrast, there was no significant difference in hospitalizations between DHD and CHD (DHD vs. CHD: 0.93 vs. 1.10/patient-year, hazard ratio 0.92 (0.85-1.00)). Cardiovascular hospitalizations were lower with DHD than with CHD (0.68 (0.61-0.77)), while infectious and access hospitalizations were higher (1.15 (1.04-1.29) and 1.25 (1.08-1.43), respectively). Significantly more PD than DHD patients switched back to in-center HD (44% vs. 15%; 3.4 (2.9-4.0)). In this prevalent cohort, home DHD was associated with fewer admissions and hospital days than PD, and a substantially lower risk of modality failure.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Treatment time received by daily hemodialysis patients over time. No, number.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Relative hazard of hospitalization associated with home daily home hemodialysis (DHD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD). CI, confidence interval; No, number.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relative hazard of hospitalization associated with daily home hemodialysis (DHD) versus in-center conventional hemodialysis (CHD). CI, confidence interval; No, number.

References

    1. Thodis ED, Oreopoulos DG. Home dialysis first: a new paradigm for new ESRD patients. J Nephrol. 2011;24:398–404.
    1. Burkart J. Role of peritoneal dialysis in the era of the resurgence of home hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2008;12:S51–S54.
    1. Burkart J. The future of peritoneal dialysis in the United States: optimizing its use. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:S125–S131.
    1. Chow J, Fortnum D, Moodie JA, et al. The HOME network: an Australian national initiative for home therapies. J Ren Care. 2013;39:56–61.
    1. Heaf J. Underutilization of peritoneal dialysis. JAMA. 2004;291:740–742.
    1. Covic A, Bammens B, Lobbedez T, et al. Educating end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis modality selection: clinical advice from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) Advisory Board. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:1757–1759.
    1. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, et al. Mortality studies comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: what do they tell us. Kidney Int. 2006;103:S3–11.
    1. Ginieri-Coccossis M, Theofilou P, Synodinou C, et al. Quality of life, mental health and health beliefs in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients: investigating differences in early and later years of current treatment. BMC Nephrol. 2008;9:14.
    1. Chanouzas D, Ng KP, Fallouh B, et al. What influences patient choice of treatment modality at the pre-dialysis stage. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:1542–1547.
    1. Komenda P, Gavaghan MB, Garfield SS, et al. An economic assessment model for in-center, conventional home, and more frequent home hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2012;81:307–313.
    1. Karopadi ANRE, Ronco C.Relative Cost of PD and HD: Data from 44 Countries. World Congress of Nephrology 2013 (Abstract). Accessed on 1 May 2014. Available from: : .
    1. Jain AK, Blake P, Cordy P, et al. Global trends in rates of peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23:533–544.
    1. Blagg CR. The renaissance of home hemodialysis: where we are, why we got here, what is happening in the United States and elsewhere. Hemodial Int. 2008;12:S2–S5.
    1. Agar JW, Hawley CM, George CR, et al. Home haemodialysis in Australia–is the wheel turning full circle. Med J Aust. 2010;192:403–406.
    1. Weinhandl ED, Liu J, Gilbertson DT, et al. Survival in daily home hemodialysis and matched thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23:895–904.
    1. Nesrallah GE, Lindsay RM, Cuerden MS, et al. Intensive hemodialysis associates with improved survival compared with conventional hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23:696–705.
    1. Johansen KL, Zhang R, Huang Y, et al. Survival and hospitalization among patients using nocturnal and short daily compared to conventional hemodialysis: a USRDS study. Kidney Int. 2009;76:984–990.
    1. Kjellstrand CM, Buoncristiani U, Ting G, et al. Short daily haemodialysis: survival in 415 patients treated for 1006 patient-years. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:3283–3289.
    1. Blagg CR, Kjellstrand CM, Ting GO, et al. Comparison of survival between short-daily hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis using the standardized mortality ratio. Hemodial Int. 2006;10:371–374.
    1. Marshall MR, Hawley CM, Kerr PG, et al. Home hemodialysis and mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand populations. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58:782–793.
    1. Chertow GMLN, Beck GJ, Eggers PW, The FHN Trial Group et al. Effects of randomization to frequent in-center hemodialysis on long- term mortality: frequent hemodialysis daily trial (abstract) J Am Soc Nephrol 2013. FR-PO342.
    1. Young BA, Chan C, Blagg C, et al. How to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:2023–2032.
    1. Scott A. Portable home hemodialysis for kidney failure. Issues Emerg Health Technol. 2007;108:1–4.
    1. Mendelssohn DC, Mullaney SR, Jung B, et al. What do American nephologists think about dialysis modality selection. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:22–29.
    1. Golper TA, Mehrotra R, Schreiber MS. Is Dorothy correct? The role of patient education in promoting home dialysis. Semin Dial. 2013;26:138–142.
    1. Davis JS, Zuber K. Implementing patient education in the CKD clinic. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2013;20:320–325.
    1. Agraharkar M, Patlovany M, Henry S, et al. Promoting use of home dialysis. Adv Perit Dial. 2003;19:163–167.
    1. Bloembergen WE, Port FK, Mauger EA, et al. A comparison of cause of death between patients treated with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995;6:184–191.
    1. Murphy SW, Foley RN, Barrett BJ, et al. Comparative hospitalization of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients in Canada. Kidney Int. 2000;57:2557–2563.
    1. Harris SA, Lamping DL, Brown EA, et al. North Thames Dialysis Study G. Clinical outcomes and quality of life in elderly patients on peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2002;22:463–470.
    1. Quinn RR, Ravani P, Zhang X, et al. Impact of modality choice on rates of hospitalization in patients eligible for both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2014;34:41–48.
    1. Lafrance JP, Rahme E, Iqbal S, et al. Association of dialysis modality with risk for infection-related hospitalization: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1598–1605.
    1. Kohn OF, Coe FL, Ing TS. Solute kinetics with short-daily home hemodialysis using slow dialysate flow rate. Hemodial Int. 2010;14:39–46.
    1. Lim WH, Kireta S, Leedham E, et al. Uremia impairs monocyte and monocyte-derived dendritic cell function in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2007;72:1138–1148.
    1. Eleftheriadis T, Antoniadi G, Liakopoulos V, et al. Disturbances of acquired immunity in hemodialysis patients. Semin Dial. 2007;20:440–451.
    1. Johansen KL, Chertow GM, Kutner NG, et al. Low level of self-reported physical activity in ambulatory patients new to dialysis. Kidney Int. 2010;78:1164–1170.
    1. Jaar BG, Plantinga LC, Crews DC, et al. Timing, causes, predictors and prognosis of switching from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis: a prospective study. BMC Nephrol. 2009;10:3.
    1. Kolesnyk I, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, et al. Time-dependent reasons for peritoneal dialysis technique failure and mortality. Perit Dial Int. 2010;30:170–177.
    1. FHNT Group, Chertow GM, Levin NW, et al. In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2287–2300.
    1. MacRae JM, Ahmed SB, Atkar R, et al. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1632–1638.
    1. Center USRDSC USRDS 2012 Researcher's Guide to the USRDS Database 2012. Accessed 27 May 2014. Available from: : .
    1. Shariff SZ, Cuerden MS, Jain AK, et al. The secret of immortal time bias in epidemiologic studies. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:841–843.
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
    1. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med. 2007;26:734–753.
    1. D'Agostino RB., Jr Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17:2265–2281.
    1. General SAS Macros. Accessed on 12 September 2013. Available from: : .
    1. Austin PC. An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.
    1. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Combining propensity-score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:573–585.
    1. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–3107.
    1. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. Bmj. 2005;330:960–962.
    1. Austin PC. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:1218–1225.
    1. Andersen PKGR. Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat. 1982;10:1100–1120.
    1. Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, et al. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1229–1235.
    1. Zhou B, Latouche A, Rocha V, et al. Competing risks regression for stratified data. Biometrics. 2011;67:661–670.
    1. Cumming RG, Sherrington C, Lord SR, et al. Cluster randomised trial of a targeted multifactorial intervention to prevent falls among older people in hospital. BMJ. 2008;336:758–760.
    1. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. Int J Biostat. Article 13 2009;5

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel