4.1 Article

UK Renal Registry 18th Annual Report: Chapter 2 UK Renal Replacement Therapy Prevalence in 2014: National and Centre-specific Analyses

Journal

NEPHRON
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages 41-67

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000444816

Keywords

Chronic kidney disease; Clinical Commissioning Group; Comorbidity; Diabetes; Dialysis; End stage renal disease; Established renal failure; Ethnicity; Haemodialysis; Peritoneal dialysis; Prevalence; Renal replacement therapy; Transplantation; Treatment modality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There were 58,968 adult patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK on 31st December 2014, an absolute increase of 4.0% from 2013. The actual number of patients increased 2.0% for haemodialysis (HD), 5.3% for those with a functioning transplant but decreased 0.7% for peritoneal dialysis (PD). The UK adult prevalence of RRT was 913 per million population (pmp). The reported prevalence in 2000 was 523 pmp.. The number of patients receiving home HD increased by 6.7% from 1,113 patients in 2013 to 1,188 patients in 2014. The median age of prevalent patients was 59 years (HD 67 years, PD 64 years, transplant 53 years). In 2000, the median age was 55 years (HD 63 years, PD 58 years, transplant 48 years). In 2014, the percentage of RRT patients aged greater than 75 years was 16.0%. For all ages, the prevalence rate in men exceeded that in women, peaking in age group 75-79 years at 3,100 pmp in men and for women at 1,600 pmp in age group 70-74 years. The most common identifiable renal diagnosis was glomerulonephritis (19%), followed by diabetes (16%) and aetiology uncertain (16%).. Transplantation continued as the most common treatment modality (53%), HD was used in 41% and PD in 6% of RRT patients. Prevalence rates in patients aged 585 years continued to increase between 2013 and 2014 (1,021 per million age related population (pmarp) to 1,060 pmarp).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available