4.6 Article

Changes in Patient and Technique Survival over Time among Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients in Canada

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01480212

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Baxter International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives In the last 15 years in Canada, there have been less stringent guidelines for peritoneal dialysis (PD) adequacy, availability of novel PD solutions, and lower PD-related peritonitis rates. Effects of these changes on outcomes of incident patients treated with PD during this period are unknown. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Risk of PD technique failure and mortality were compared among three incident cohorts of PD patients who initiated dialysis during the following periods: 1995-2000, 2001-2005, and 2006-2009. A multivariable model was used to evaluate time to PD technique failure using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights accounting for changing survival and transplantation rates. Results Between 1995 and 2009,13,120 incident adult PD patients were identified from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Compared with the 1995-2000 cohort (n=5183), the risk of PD technique failure was lower among patients between 2001 and 2005 (n=4316) but similar among incident patients between 2006 and 2009 (n=3621). Cause-specific PD technique failure revealed no difference in PD peritonitis-related technique failure over time. PD technique failure due to inadequate PD was initially higher in the 2001-2005 cohort but lower in the 2006-2009 cohort compared with the 1995-2000 cohort. Relative to incident patients between 1995 and 2000, adjusted mortality was lower among incident patients between 2001 and 2005 and 2006 and 2009. Conclusions Survival on PD continues to improve with only modest changes in PD technique failure. Peritonitis remains an ongoing and modifiable source of PD technique failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1145-1154, 2012. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01480212

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available