The pretransplant dialysis modality might influence renal allograft and patient survival after transplantation. Studies published to date yielded conflicting results.
Deceased-donor allograft recipients reported to the 'Collaborative Transplant Study' were analysed, using multivariate Cox regression analysis, considering potential confounders which included pretransplant patient cardiovascular risk evaluation as well as immunological and treatment parameters. Primary end points were all-cause graft survival, death-censored graft survival and patient survival.
In total, 60,008 recipients were analysed. Patients who were on peritoneal dialysis (PD) (n = 11,664) prior to transplantation demonstrated a 10% lower all-cause mortality (P = 0.014) but similar death-censored graft survival (P = 0.39) as recipients treated with haemodialysis (n = 45,651). This lower all-cause mortality in PD patients was primarily a consequence of a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular death with a functioning graft (P < 0.013) in a subcohort of patients defined as at increased risk.
Pretransplant dialysis modality per se has no significant impact on allograft outcome. Superior all-cause survival of PD patients is primarily due to a lower rate of cardiovascular death in a subcohort of high-risk recipients. This might explain the conflicting results published to date.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) are dialysis options for end-stage renal disease patients in whom preemptive kidney transplantation is not possible. The selection of PD or HD will usually be based on patient motivation, desire, geographic distance from an HD unit, physician and/or nurse bias, and patient education. Unfortunately, many patients are not educated on PD before beginning dialysis. Most studies show that the relative risk of death in patients on in-center HD versus PD changes over time with a lower risk on PD, especially in the first 3 months of dialysis. The survival advantage of PD continues for 1.5-2 years but, over time, the risk of death with PD equals or becomes greater than with in-center HD, depending on patient factors. Thus, PD survival is best at the start of dialysis. Patient satisfaction may be higher with PD, and PD costs are significantly lower than HD costs. The new reimbursement system, including bundling of dialysis services, may lead to an increase in the number of incident patients on PD. The high technique failure of PD persists, despite significant reductions in peritonitis rates. Infection also continues to be an important cause of mortality and morbidity among HD patients, especially those using a central venous catheter as HD access. Nephrologists' efforts should be focused on educating themselves and their patients about the opportunities for home modality therapies and reducing the reliance on central venous catheter for long-term HD access.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The association between pretransplant dialysis modality and transplant outcomes remains inconsistent. The aim of this study is to address the association between alteration in dialysis modality and post-transplant outcomes. Using Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, primary live- and deceased-donor renal transplant recipients (RTR) between 1997 and 2009 were examined. Pre-emptive and multiple-organ transplants were excluded. The association between initial and pretransplant dialysis modality and transplant outcomes were examined. Of the 6701 RTR, 18.6% were initiated-maintained on peritoneal dialysis pretransplant (PD-PD), 9.2% were initiated on PD, but maintained on haemodialysis (HD) pretransplant (PD-HD), 63.3% were HD-HD and 8.9% were HD-PD. PD-HD [odds ratio(OR)1.44, 95% CI 1.21,1.72] and HD-HD (OR1.25, 95% CI 1.12,1.41) were associated with a significantly greater risk of slow graft function compared with the overall mean of the groups, whereas a change in initial dialysis modality from HD to pretransplant PD was associated with higher risk of overall graft failure [hazard ratio(HR)1.19, 95% CI 1.04,1.36) and recipient death (HR1.34, 95% CI 1.13,1.59). Our registry analysis suggest that dialysis modality pretransplant may affect transplant outcomes and future studies evaluating patient selection, choice of modality and/or potential interventions in the pre and post-transplant period may have a beneficial effect on post-transplant outcomes.
Transplant International 07/2012; 25(10):1032-1040. DOI:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01528.x · 2.60 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Kidney transplantation is the best option for the treatment of end-stage renal disease in terms of survival and quality of life. These results can be influenced by the pretransplant dialysis modality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the pretransplantation dialysis modality influences patient and allograft survival beyond 10 years and examine the potential risk factors associated with the outcomes.
We conducted an observational, retrospective, single-center clinical study that included 236 patients [118 undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 118 undergoing hemodialysis (HD)] who proceeded to transplantation during the period December 1990-2002. Donor and recipient data were collected from our hospital's clinical registries. The follow-up period extended to the patient's death, the loss of the allograft, or loss to follow-up. The end date of the study was set at March 2012.
In the multivariate analysis, the long-term patient survival rate was higher for the PD group than for the HD group [HR = 2.62 (1.01-6.8); p = 0.04]; however, the allograft survival rate was not significantly different between the two groups [HR = 0.68 (0.41-1.10); p = 0.12].
Pretransplantation dialysis modality is associated with long-term patient survival, with outcomes favoring peritoneal dialysis over hemodialysis. However, the pretransplant dialysis modality does not influence long-term graft loss risk.
International Urology and Nephrology 09/2013; 46(4). DOI:10.1007/s11255-013-0521-0 · 1.52 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.