1
|
Heaf J, Heiro M, Petersons A, Vernere B, Povlsen JV, Sørensen AB, Clyne N, Bumblyte I, Zilinskiene A, Randers E, Løkkegaard N, Rosenberg M, Kjellevold S, Kampmann JD, Rogland B, Lagreid I, Heimburger O, Qureshi AR, Lindholm B. First-year mortality in incident dialysis patients: results of the Peridialysis study. BMC Nephrol 2022; 23:229. [PMID: 35761193 PMCID: PMC9235232 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-022-02852-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 06/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Controversy surrounds which factors are important for predicting early mortality after dialysis initiation (DI). We investigated associations of predialysis course and circumstances affecting planning and execution of DI with mortality following DI. Methods Among 1580 patients participating in the Peridialysis study, a study of causes and timing of DI, we registered features of predialysis course, clinical and biochemical data at DI, incidence of unplanned suboptimal DI, contraindications to peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD), and modality preference, actual choice, and cause of modality choice. Patients were followed for 12 months or until transplantation. A flexible parametric model was used to identify independent factors associated with all-cause mortality. Results First-year mortality was 19.33%. Independent factors predicting death were high age, comorbidity, clinical contraindications to PD or HD, suboptimal DI, high eGFR, low serum albumin, hyperphosphatemia, high C-reactive protein, signs of overhydration and cerebral symptoms at DI. Among 1061 (67.2%) patients who could select dialysis modality based on personal choice, 654 (61.6%) chose PD, 368 (34.7%) center HD and 39 (3.7%) home HD. The 12-months survival did not differ significantly between patients receiving PD and in-center HD. Conclusions First-year mortality in incident dialysis patients was in addition to high age and comorbidity, associated with clinical contraindications to PD or HD, clinical symptoms, hyperphosphatemia, inflammation, and suboptimal DI. In patients with a “free” choice of dialysis modality based on their personal preferences, PD and in-center HD led to broadly similar short-term outcomes.
Collapse
|
2
|
Heaf J, Heiro M, Petersons A, Vernere B, Povlsen JV, Sørensen AB, Clyne N, Bumblyte I, Zilinskiene A, Randers E, Løkkegaard N, Ots-Rosenberg M, Kjellevold S, Kampmann JD, Rogland B, Lagreid I, Heimburger O, Lindholm B. Choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis: results of the Peridialysis study. Clin Kidney J 2021; 14:2064-2074. [PMID: 34476093 PMCID: PMC8406075 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI). Methods The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered. Results Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a ‘home dialysis first’ institutional policy. Conclusions Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Heaf
- Department of Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.,Department of Nephrology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Maija Heiro
- Department of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Aivars Petersons
- Latvia Nephrology Department, P. Stradins University Hospital, Riga, Latvia
| | - Baiba Vernere
- Latvia Nephrology Department, P. Stradins University Hospital, Riga, Latvia
| | - Johan V Povlsen
- Department of Nephrology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Naomi Clyne
- Department of Nephrology, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Inge Bumblyte
- Nephrological Clinic, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Alanta Zilinskiene
- Nephrological Clinic, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Else Randers
- Department of Medicine, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark
| | | | - Mai Ots-Rosenberg
- Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | | | | | - Björn Rogland
- Department of Medicine, Kristianstad Hospital, Kristianstad, Sweden
| | - Inger Lagreid
- Department of Medicine, St Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Olof Heimburger
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Bengt Lindholm
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|