Prevalence of pulmonary hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease on and without dialysis

Prevalence of pulmonary hypertension in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Recent epidemiological evidence indicates an association between peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients and pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, the true prevalence of PH associated with PD has not been well described. So we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the point prevalence of PH in adults with PD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the reference lists of relevant articles were searched to identify eligible studies. We used a random-effect meta-analysis model to estimate the prevalence of PH. We also performed sensitivity analyses and assessments of publishing bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen observational studies (n = 1483 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The result of analysis in random-effect model showed that the pooled prevalence was 21% (95% CI 16-28), with significant heterogeneity between these studies (I² = 84%, p < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis further demonstrated the results to be robust. Besides, the Egger's test (p = 0.287) showed no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

PH is highly prevalent in patients with PD. Further studies are encouraged to definitively clarify the relationship between PH and PD.

Prevalence of pulmonary hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease without dialysis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Recent epidemiological evidence attempts to demonstrate the risk of pulmonary hypertension (PH) among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) without dialysis, but prevalence estimates of PH in CKD without dialysis vary widely in the existing studies. This meta-analysis was to summarize the point prevalence of PH in adults with CKD without dialysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the reference lists of relevant articles were searched to identify eligible studies. We used a random-effect meta-analysis model to estimate the prevalence of PH. Associations were tested in subgroups and meta-regression analyses. We also performed sensitivity analyses and assessments of publishing bias.

RESULTS

Twenty-one observational studies (n = 8012 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The result of analysis in random-effect model showed that the pooled prevalence was 32% (95% CI 23-42%), with significant heterogeneity between these studies (I² = 98%, P < 0.01). Stratified analyses found that the study design, region, sample size, year of publication, and definition of PH based on PASP ≥ 35 mmHg may explain the variation between studies. Sensitivity analysis further demonstrated the results to be robust. There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

PH is highly prevalent in patients with CKD without dialysis. Owing to the high heterogeneity, future well-designed and large prospective studies are encouraged to confirm the findings and definitively clarify the potential biological mechanisms.