Mortality in High-Flux Hemodialysis vs. High-Volume Hemodiafiltration in Colombian Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Luis A. Valderrama, L. Barrera, E. Cantor, J. Muñoz, Javier Arango, Carlos Tobon, B. Canaud
{"title":"Mortality in High-Flux Hemodialysis vs. High-Volume Hemodiafiltration in Colombian Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score Matching Study","authors":"Luis A. Valderrama, L. Barrera, E. Cantor, J. Muñoz, Javier Arango, Carlos Tobon, B. Canaud","doi":"10.3390/kidneydial2020022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim was to compare the effects of high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) versus high-volume post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HV-HDF) on mortality risk. Methods: Retrospective observational study of prevalent patients on hemodialysis who were followed for two years and treated in 28 kidney centers in Colombia. In this study, we included all adult patients who had been on dialysis for at least 90 days treated with an arteriovenous fistula. They were classified as HF-HD if they underwent this treatment exclusively (100% of time). For HV-HDF, if they received this treatment in more than 90% of the observation period. The primary outcome variable was mortality, and the type of hemodialysis therapy was considered as the exposure variable. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of dialysis modality on the mortality risk. Results: A total of 2933 patients were analyzed, 2361 patients with HF-HD and 572 with HV-HDF. After PSM, 1010 prevalent patients remained; mortality rate was 14.2% (95% Confidence Interval—CI: 11.3–17.6%) and 5.9% (95%CI: 4.0–8.4%) in HF-HD and HV-HDF group, respectively. HV-HDF therapy was associated with a 55% reduction in mortality compared with the HF-HD group (Hazards ratio-HR: 0.45 [95%CI 0.32–0.64] p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality rate was not statistically different between groups (HF-HD: 7.1% (36), HV-HDF: 3.4% (17), HR: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.21–1.28), p: 0.152). However, in patients younger than 60 years, a beneficial effect was observed in favor to HV-HDF therapy with a 79% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk (HR: 0.21, (95%CI: 0.05–0.79), p: 0.021). Conclusion: After adjustment for different confounders, this study suggests that HV-HDF could reduce all-cause mortality compared to HF-HD therapy in prevalent patients on hemodialysis.","PeriodicalId":74038,"journal":{"name":"Kidney and dialysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kidney and dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/kidneydial2020022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The aim was to compare the effects of high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) versus high-volume post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HV-HDF) on mortality risk. Methods: Retrospective observational study of prevalent patients on hemodialysis who were followed for two years and treated in 28 kidney centers in Colombia. In this study, we included all adult patients who had been on dialysis for at least 90 days treated with an arteriovenous fistula. They were classified as HF-HD if they underwent this treatment exclusively (100% of time). For HV-HDF, if they received this treatment in more than 90% of the observation period. The primary outcome variable was mortality, and the type of hemodialysis therapy was considered as the exposure variable. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of dialysis modality on the mortality risk. Results: A total of 2933 patients were analyzed, 2361 patients with HF-HD and 572 with HV-HDF. After PSM, 1010 prevalent patients remained; mortality rate was 14.2% (95% Confidence Interval—CI: 11.3–17.6%) and 5.9% (95%CI: 4.0–8.4%) in HF-HD and HV-HDF group, respectively. HV-HDF therapy was associated with a 55% reduction in mortality compared with the HF-HD group (Hazards ratio-HR: 0.45 [95%CI 0.32–0.64] p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality rate was not statistically different between groups (HF-HD: 7.1% (36), HV-HDF: 3.4% (17), HR: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.21–1.28), p: 0.152). However, in patients younger than 60 years, a beneficial effect was observed in favor to HV-HDF therapy with a 79% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk (HR: 0.21, (95%CI: 0.05–0.79), p: 0.021). Conclusion: After adjustment for different confounders, this study suggests that HV-HDF could reduce all-cause mortality compared to HF-HD therapy in prevalent patients on hemodialysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哥伦比亚临床实践中高通量血液透析与大容量血液滤过的死亡率:倾向评分匹配研究
背景:目的是比较高通量血液透析(HF-HD)与高容量稀释后血液滤过(HV-HDF)对死亡风险的影响。方法:对哥伦比亚28个肾脏中心的血液透析流行患者进行为期2年的回顾性观察研究。在这项研究中,我们纳入了所有接受透析至少90天并接受动静脉瘘治疗的成年患者。如果他们只接受这种治疗(100%的时间),他们被归类为HF-HD。对于HV-HDF,如果他们在90%以上的观察期接受这种治疗。主要结局变量是死亡率,血液透析治疗类型被认为是暴露变量。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)和Cox回归模型评估透析方式对死亡风险的影响。结果:共分析2933例患者,其中HF-HD患者2361例,HV-HDF患者572例。经PSM后,仍有1010例流行患者;HF-HD组和HV-HDF组的死亡率分别为14.2%(95%可信区间:11.3-17.6%)和5.9%(95%可信区间:4.0-8.4%)。与HF-HD组相比,HV-HDF治疗与死亡率降低55%相关(风险比:0.45 [95%CI 0.32-0.64] p < 0.001)。两组间心血管死亡率无统计学差异(HF-HD: 7.1% (36), HV-HDF: 3.4% (17), HR: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.21-1.28), p: 0.152)。然而,在60岁以下的患者中,观察到有利于HV-HDF治疗的有益效果,心血管死亡风险降低79% (HR: 0.21, (95%CI: 0.05-0.79), p: 0.021)。结论:在对不同混杂因素进行调整后,本研究表明,在血透流行患者中,与HF-HD治疗相比,HV-HDF可以降低全因死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Two Levels of Podocyte Dysfunctions Induced by Apolipoprotein L1 Risk Variants Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Children after Cardiopulmonary Bypass How Can We Improve the Appetite of Older Patients on Dialysis in Japan? Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis: Current State and Future Directions An Update on Hypomagnesemia and Hypermagnesemia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1